Islington Council has been told to apologise for causing distress to the family of an elderly woman with dementia after record-keeping failures in a dispute over care funding. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) found the council failed in its statutory duties and made decisions around her care more difficult and stressful for the family.
The older woman, referred to as Mrs C, had physical disabilities and was admitted to hospital in April 2024 after falling from her wheelchair and breaking her hip, requiring surgery. When she was ready for discharge, clinical and care staff determined she needed full bed-based care. However, her family, who had been caring for her, eventually complained to the ombudsman amid a dispute over the cost of care.
While the LGSCO dismissed some complaints the family had levelled at the council, it rebuked the authority for a series of administrative errors, including issuing an incorrect invoice for care that did not reflect cancelled carer visits. The investigation found the council kept poor records during Mrs C's discharge from hospital and failed in its statutory obligation to provide her family with a written copy of its needs assessment. These mistakes ultimately made decisions around her care more difficult and stressful for the family.
Shared Blame for Financial Confusion
However, the probe also concluded that some of the blame lay with the family for their financial confusion. Mrs C's adult children mistakenly believed their mother was entitled to up to six weeks of free support, or reablement, and claimed they were informally promised this at the hospital. The woman's son, Mr B, also did not disclose to the council how much capital his mother had, which meant the council treated her by default as a self-funder and charged her the full amount for her support. In England, if a person has over £23,250 in savings and assets, they must pay for their own care.
Soon after receiving a bill, the family contacted the council to argue they did not know they would be charged the full amount. They withheld payment and asked for the care package to be stopped. But the watchdog made clear that a physiotherapist and a social worker had both told the family that reablement was not on offer, and a booklet sent to the family explained that failing to disclose her capital would lead the council to assume Mrs C could afford the entire cost of care.
Ombudsman Orders Remedies
The family also complained that they received their bill after much delay, but the ombudsman said this was their fault for taking three months to return necessary financial forms. However, the ombudsman noted that paying off the large debt they had accrued could drain Mrs C's finances and drop her below the threshold for self-funding. The watchdog ordered the council to offer a new financial assessment to see if she was eligible for funding, as well as a repayment plan.
The ombudsman also instructed the council to carry out a mental capacity assessment to determine if Mrs C was able to make decisions about ending her care, and to hold a best interest meeting with the family and professionals about this. The report concluded that Islington should apologise to Mr B for its faults, provide an updated invoice for the outstanding debt, and make service improvements around record-keeping and sharing care plans.
Islington Council was contacted for comment by the Local Democracy Reporting Service.
