The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council mishandled payment arrangements for her mother, Mrs Y’s, care at a care home. We discontinued our investigation. That was because the Council provided a suitable remedy for the injustice. We could not add to the Council’s investigation, and were unlikely to achieve a different outcome.
The complaint
Mrs X complained the Council mishandled payment arrangements for her mother, Mrs Y’s, care at a care home.
Mrs X received threats of legal action from the Council over non-payment of charges she already paid direct to the care home. She said this caused upset 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 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 or continue an investigation if we decide: we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Mrs X provided.
I also considered the Council’s response along with relevant law and guidance.
Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
I have summarised below some key events leading to Mrs X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
Mrs Y moved into a care home in 2022. Mrs X put Mrs Y’s house up for sale to pay for her care fees. Mrs Y was self-funding.
Unfortunately, the house did not sell immediately, and Mrs Y ran out of money.
Mrs X approached the Council in late 2022, asking for a deferred payment agreement.
Mrs X heard nothing back from the Council about the deferred payment agreement, but understood the Council agreed to pay Mrs Y’s care home fees until she sold her home.
The care home chased Mrs X in February 2023 over unpaid fees, threatening to evict Mrs Y. The Council started paying in April 2023, including paying the unpaid fees.
When Mrs X sold Mrs Y’s house, she repaid the Council and started to pay the care home direct on a self-funding basis again. She told the Council’s social care team about this arrangement. Unfortunately, the Council’s finance team was unaware, and continued to pay the care home as well.
The Council then sought to recover care charges from Mrs X, including sending letters threatening legal action. Mrs X said it took about six months to resolve the situation.
Mrs X complained to the Council. Due to a technical issue with the Council’s complaint management system, it overlooked Mrs X’s complaint. It took the Council ten months to provide a complaint response.
The Council’s complaint response accepted its communication with the care home was poor. It also accepted it mishandled Mrs X’s complaint. It recognised the distress it caused and apologised. It also offered Mrs X £500 for the delay, distress, and inconvenience.
The Council said it was improving its service by reviewing complaint handling and reminding its staff about the importance of clear communication between services through ongoing training.
Analysis I discontinued my investigation.
That was because the Council accepted fault over its communication and complaint handling, and there is nothing significant we could add.
The Council offered Mrs X a suitable financial remedy, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance. It also said it would make service improvements, including a review of the complaint process and refresher training for staff. This is in keeping with the type of service improvement we would recommend.
It is therefore unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome. And I did not consider any additional worthwhile outcome was likely to be achieved.
Final decision
I discontinued my investigation. That was because the Council provided a suitable remedy for the injustice. We could not add to the Council’s investigation, and were unlikely to achieve a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman