Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the cost of adult social care respite breaks. The Council told the complainant there was a cost for respite, and that the person using the service was responsible to pay the full costs of their care. There was a failure to send an updated care plan, and a small delay in invoicing for the respite, but these errors do not cause a significant injustice to warrant further investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms B says the Council failed to tell her there would be a cost for her mother, Ms C’s, respite stays in residential care. So, it came as a surprise when they received an invoice from the Council as Ms B thought the respite was free. Ms B also says the Council delayed invoicing as she received the invoice two months after the first stay. Ms B says if they had received it sooner, they may have made alternative arrangements. Ms B says the Council’s actions have caused unnecessary stress and upset and believes the Council should fund the respite.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused significant enough injustice to the person who complained to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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. Ms C is a full cost client of the Council for her adult social care. This means the Council arranges Ms C’s care, but because of her financial situation Ms C pays in full. Ms C lives with Ms B. Ms C receives one care call from a care agency each morning, and Ms B meets all of Ms C’s other care needs.
6. To assist Ms B in her caring role she asked the Council for respite. This means Ms C would have a short stay in a residential care home to give Ms B a break. The Council agreed this and added 28 days per year respite breaks to Ms C’s care plan including the personal budget (cost) for this provision. The Council should have shared the updated care plan with Ms C, or Ms B on her behalf, but failed to do so.
7. A few months later Ms B booked in some short breaks for Ms C, over three consecutive months. Ms B assumed these breaks were free because she says the Council had not said otherwise. The Council sent a bill to Ms C for all breaks, two months after the first one. The bill was for almost £4000 and came as a shock.
8. When the Council assessed Ms C needed adult social care, it had a duty to complete a financial assessment to decide what, if anything, Ms C can contribute towards the cost of her care. It must then review this at least annually. The Council sent Ms C a letter in January confirming the outcome of the financial assessment; that Ms C would fund her care in full. Within that letter the Council included the costs of respite care as £980 per week.
9. When the Council reviewed Ms C’s care in the July and added respite care to her care plan, it should have sent the amended care plan to Ms C, or Ms B on her behalf. This would have confirmed the cost of the provision. But there was no need to redo the financial assessment, and so the information already sent in January remained relevant for the cost of respite and that Ms C was responsible to fund her care in full.
10. Although it would have been helpful if the Council had reminded Ms B there was a charge for respite and what those charges are, I am satisfied it had provided Ms B with relevant information within the previous 12 months. The Council’s information was clear Ms C was responsible to pay for her own care and that respite was a chargeable service. Ms B says she thought the January letter was all in relation to care at home. It is not clear why Ms B would think there was a charge for respite in your own home but not for respite in a residential care home. If Ms B was unsure, it was open to her to clarify this with the Council.
11. I do not find there was a significant delay in the Council’s invoicing for the respite stays. We would expect an invoice to be sent within one month of what is being charged for, so there was a one-month delay in this case. This does not cause a significant injustice, given we are satisfied with the charging information previously supplied.
12. The Council will improve its future service by ensuring to give information about respite and the costs of care every time respite is requested and arranged. The Council will confirm the person using the service understands the information provided about costs of care.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because although there were some small faults in the Council’s service, those faults do not cause significant injustice to justify us investigating further. There is no fault in the substantive element of the complaint; the costs information provided about respite care. So, we would not achieve the sought outcome of waiving those costs.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman