The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council communicated with Mrs C’s family about paying for her care. This is because further investigation would not achieve a different outcome to that Mr B has already received from the Council.
The complaint
Mr C complained he was given contradictory information about paying for his mother’s Mrs C’s care. Mr B says he was told Mrs C was under assessment and there would be no charges until all the assessments had been completed. Mr C wants the Council to acknowledge it lacked a duty of care to Mrs C and the failure to communicate caused her family upset anger and distress.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council’s response to Mr B acknowledged information at times was unclear but says this was because it was not aware Mrs C owned a property until October 2021. It says it appears the CFA was aware of this sometime earlier but there was some confusion between the teams, however, when it discovered Mrs C had a property, which had been held in Trust since 2013, it decided to include this as an asset in her financial assessment. The Council says it was informed Mrs C’s finances were below the threshold for contributing towards her care. The Council explained it included the property held in Trust because it was placed in Trust some years after Mrs C had been diagnosed with dementia.
The Council has explained why the information Mr B initially received may have been unclear and the reasons why it should include the property as an asset for the purpose of the financial assessment. We could not add to this point or make a different finding even if we investigated.
The Council apologised for the confusion and incorrect information Mr B received regarding charging for care whilst the Decision Support Tool (DST) was being completed to see if Mrs C was eligible for NHS funded care. The Council also apologised if Mr B felt the officer who was seeking clarification around whether the family wanted to arrange a Deferred Payment Agreement or make their own arrangements for paying for Mrs C’s care, was rude and impolite, and assured him it was not the intention. Mrs C entered the care home on 28 June 2021, the Council confirmed the 12-week disregarded ceased on 20 September 2021. The Council agreed to fund the two months additional 1:1 care Mrs C received.
Understandably Mr B has been distressed because of the lack of clear communication around paying for care, however, the outcome would have always been the same if the Council had known about the property at the time when Mrs C entered care. When it did know it completed the financial assessment and advised Mrs C’s representatives of the charges. The Council says no care fees have yet been paid. There is no significant injustice warranting an ombudsman investigation around these points. The Council has apologised, and we could achieve no more than this.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because further investigation would not be proportionate to the injustice caused.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman