Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to tell her that her husband would need to pay a contribution towards the cost of his respite care. This is because the claimed fault has not caused any injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to tell her that her husband would need to pay a contribution towards the cost of his respite care.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X’s husband, Mr Z, received respite care in July 2024. Mrs X says she was not told her husband would need to contribute towards the cost of this placement until August 2024.
6. The Council said it posted Mrs X a charging factsheet in May 2024. This factsheet contained information about charging, including that a financial assessment would be completed to work out how much an individual needed to contribute towards the cost of their care. The Council also confirmed a case note, dated May 2024, also confirmed Mrs X was aware Mr Z would be assessed to determine how much he needs to pay towards his care.
7. Mrs X said she never received this information and was not aware her husband would be assessed to pay a contribution. Mrs X provided a copy of an email she sent to the Council in August 2024 where she questioned the reference to a contribution.
8. It is clear there is a conflict in evidence with regards to whether Mrs X was told the respite care was chargeable. As there is no other supporting evidence, it is unlikely we would be able to make any finding as to whether Mrs X was given the information. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as it would not lead to any worthwhile outcomes.
9. Even if we were to find fault with the Council for not telling Mrs X that the respite placement was chargeable, I am satisfied an investigation is not justified because it has not caused Mr Z any injustice.
10. This is because the law is clear the Council can charge an individual for their care and support. If the claimed fault had not occurred, i.e if the Council had told Mrs X that a financial assessment would be completed to determine Mr Z’s contribution towards the cost of his care, then it is the case that Mr Z would need to pay the assessed charges. This is the exact same position Mr Z is in currently. Therefore, the claimed fault has not financially disadvantaged Mr Z in anyway.
11. I acknowledge Mrs X will have been caused some distress at receiving a surprised bill. However, I do not consider this injustice to be significant enough to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because the claimed fault has not caused any injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman