Date of decision: 26 June 2025
Summary
Miss Y complained to the Ombudsman on behalf of Mr X regarding a backdated invoice sent by West Sussex Council for £4413.94, which was for his contribution towards his day centre visits.
West Sussex Council significantly undercharged Mr X in its financial assessment of social care costs and informed Mr X that he was liable to pay the contribution shortfall without warning. Miss Y complained that this caused significant stress and financial strain on Mr X.
What happened
In December 2022, Mr X signed a document consenting to contribute to the cost of his adult social care, pending a proper financial assessment.
In March 2023, still awaiting a financial assessment, Mr X began attending a day centre.
Upon completion of the financial assessment, the Council informed Mr X that he would be required to contribute £3.10 per week towards his access to the day centre. Mr X agreed to this.
In May 2023, a needs assessment was carried out for Mr X by the Council. Mr X informed the Council that he believed the day centre was not beneficial for him.
In February 2024, a review of Mr X’s needs assessment was carried out. Mr X repeated to the Council that he believed the day centre was not of any benefit to him.
In May 2024, the Council informed Miss Y that Mr X’s contribution to his adult social care costs would increase to £6.39 per week. Mr X continued attending the day centre, but he had not been told of any retrospective charge or mistake.
The Council sent an invoice for £4413.94 to Mr X in August. Miss Y made contact with the Council, who advised her that it had made an error in its financial assessment and he would be liable to pay the backdated contributions.
Mr X stopped attending the day centre. Miss Y (on behalf of Mr X) made a formal complaint about the outstanding contributions to adult social care.
In stage one of the complaint response, the Council advised Miss X that it had miscalculated over 2 years, significantly undercharging Mr X. The Council told Miss X the mistakes it made in the two financial assessments meant it had undercharged Mr X by £63.46 per week in 2023 and £64.57 per week in 2024.
The Council apologised for the mistake and told Miss X that, upon realising its error in May 2024, it reassessed Mr X’s contribution and sent a letter in June.
Miss X stated that they did not receive any letter and escalated her complaint to stage two.
In the final complaint stage, the Council asserted to Miss X that Mr X had signed the document originally asking for his consent to his contribution towards his adult social care costs, and was therefore liable to pay the backdated contributions.
What was found
The Ombudsman found the Council to be at fault. The Council’s error in calculating the required contributions to Mr X’s adult social care costs meant that he was unable to make an informed choice, not with regard to the charges, but with regard to the value of the services provided to him in relation to the charges.
Mr X repeatedly informed the Council that he did not feel the day care centre was beneficial for him. Mr X stopped attending the day centre after being told about his new required contribution.
The Ombudsman found that it was likely Mr X would not have attended the day centre if he was aware of the correct contributions and as a result, Mr X should not be liable for the outstanding contributions.
The Council resolved the injustice by waiving the additional costs of £4413.94 and apologised for the faults made in its financial assessments.
Points to note for councils, professionals, people using services and their carers, advocacy groups and members of the public
The Care Act 2014, its Regulations, and statutory guidance require councils to carry out timely, individualised financial assessments for community care charges, and provide clear written records of those assessments before charging for non-residential services.
Charging cannot lawfully be imposed retrospectively unless service users are explicitly properly informed at the relevant time and given a genuine opportunity to make an informed choice – begging the question how they can do that if they haven’t been given a figure, let alone a correct figure.
Failure to provide accurate, prompt information about financial responsibilities risks breaching the Care Act’s duties to promote wellbeing and aid informed decision-making. The legal point is that their agreement to a charge is not in fact required; it’s a statutory liability whether or not they agree to it or even if they lack capacity to agree. But what they do have (if they have capacity or someone else is making best interests decisions for them) is the means to make a decision about refusing a service – which they can’t do, whatever their capacity level, if they don’t know the true facts. Service users who are misinformed or under-informed about their financial liability for services should thus not in general, we think, be held accountable for retrospective charges, where errors significantly impede their ability to refuse services that would arise, based on full cost information.
In this scenario, we never learn what the role of Miss Y was, which is a missed opportunity – she may have been an Appointee, or an Attorney with some welfare decision-making authority for Mr Y.
Councils should review their assessment and charging systems and ensure compliance with statutory frameworks, including prompt notification of rights, eligibility, and financial consequences, as stressed in the Ombudsman’s own guidance and in judicial review precedents. Advocacy organisations and care professionals should highlight these standards and support service users in challenging any failure to meet statutory duties.
Broader implications include the requirement for councils to adopt robust quality assurance for financial assessments, provide ongoing staff training on Care Act obligations, and maintain transparent communication at all stages. Councils must proactively ensure assessment, notification, and charging processes support service users’ informed choices and promote well-being, as demanded by the Care Act. Community care law demands ongoing vigilance and procedural fairness—practitioners and the public alike should remain alert to errors and challenge practice not meeting statutory standards.
Please use the following link if you want to read the original Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s West Sussex County Council (24 015 592) report.
If you are affected by the issues in this report, please consider asking a free, one-off question, anonymously, at a level of principle, here. Our experts’ response will give you an opinion which may then help you and the broader community, when posted.
Did you enjoy this analysis? Want to stay informed with our weekly Alert Service?Then do click here to find out how you can receive the latest insights from experts and commentators and stay updated on key judicial decisions, ombudsmen’s reports, and critical law and policy changes, all for just £25 per YEAR and sent straight to your inbox or WhatsApp!