Barnsley Council apologises to family who were affected by a care home cost error

The case involved a complaint about the way that Barnsley Council had calculated a contribution to a care home residents' costs and, in particular, the way it considered his capital.

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman – the independent watchdog which investigates complaints - found that the council was at fault in the way it considered all the circumstances and information the family provided when reviewing its decision, but not in the way the Council considered the man’s income when it carried out the financial assessment.

The ombudsman said the council should review its process for dealing with challenges to adult social care financial assessments.

According to the report, Mrs R, who made the complaint on behalf of her father, Mr X, said that the council's financial assessment of Mr X found that he had some capital in a joint account with his wife, and some capital in his sole name. The council said the capital in Mr X’s sole name meant he was above the capital limit and would have to fully fund his care costs until his capital fell below £23,250.

Mr X's family said he must have made a mistake, and the capital should be treated as jointly owned by Mr and Mrs X.

Although a family member was looking after the finances for Mr and Mrs X by then the relevant account was not in regular use so there was no reason to have noted this sooner.

When the council officer dealing with the query sought legal advice, the legal advisor said that unless there was evidence to the contrary, the council could assume Mr X intended to reinvest in his sole name and the capital belonged to him alone.

The report, by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, states that: "Mrs R also complained to us about the way the Council considered Mr X’s income. She said Mrs X was left with insufficient income to live on.

"The financial assessment shows the Council took into account half of Mr X’s private pension. Its records show officer 1 advised the family to apply for pension credit, attendance allowance and housing benefit, and to tell the council tax team Mr X was now living in a care home.

"The family explained why they had not challenged the mistake before and why there was no intention of avoiding care costs. The family also provided detailed information about the history of the money invested as well as financial documents. There is no record of how the Council considered this information and the complaint response does not explain how it considered it.

"By the time the mistake was discovered Mr X did not have capacity so could not be asked about his intentions when making the investment. It is not clear whether he was aware the investment was in his sole name and therefore whether he could have corrected this if it was a mistake.

"On balance, I am not satisfied the Council considered all the circumstances and information the family provided when reviewing its decision. This was fault. The Council acknowledged its “internal records may not have represented the position accurately”.

"I am also not satisfied the Council properly explained its reasons for not changing its view after the family provided the further information the Council had requested. This was further fault.

"The faults identified meant Mrs R and her brother were put to time and trouble pursuing the Council as well as uncertainty over the outcome for many months. Mrs X suffered uncertainty about her financial position for a prolonged period of time. However, I cannot know if her financial position would have been different had the Council’s faults had not occurred."

The council was ordered by the ombudsman to apologise to Mrs R for the delay in carrying out a review of the financial assessment decision and the failings identified in that process; and pay Mrs R £150 and her brother £250 for the delay and their time and trouble in pursuing the matter over a prolonged period, and Mrs X £300 for the uncertainty caused as a result of failings and delay in the review process -a total payment of £700.

Councillor Jenny Platts, cabinet spokesperson for adults and communities, said: “We always seek to learn from Ombudsman Reports recommendations, and we apologise or any inconvenience that has been created as a consequence of this error.”

“We’re reviewing our process accordingly.”

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this story on our website. While I have your attention, I also have an important request to make of you.

With the coronavirus lockdown having a major impact on many of our advertisers - and consequently the revenue we receive - we are more reliant than ever on you taking out a digital subscription.

Subscribe to The Star website and enjoy unlimited access to local news and information online and on our app. With a digital subscription, you can read more than 5 articles, see fewer ads, enjoy faster load times, and get access to exclusive newsletters and content.

Visit https://www.thestar.co.uk/subscriptions now to sign up.Our journalism costs money and we rely on advertising, print and digital revenues to help to support them. By supporting us, we are able to support you in providing trusted, fact-checked content for this website.