An elderly man was charged for staying in a care home because Shropshire Council could not find a domiciliary care provider to come out to his rural home, an investigation has found.

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGO) has ordered the council to re-calculate what it billed the man – who has since died – for a three-and-a-half month stay in early 2019.

A report on the case says the man, named only as Mr N, also had to stay in hospital for two months later that year because the council was once again unable to arrange a home care package.

Mr N was billed over £400 a week for the care home stay, but this was disputed by his daughter, Miss N, who said it was a result of the council’s failure to find a domiciliary care provider.

The LGO report says the council should have considered reducing Mr N’s care home fees because of the circumstances, and says the fact this did not happen was a further fault.

The report identifies a string of failings on the part of the council, which the watchdog says caused “unnecessary distress”.

As well as re-calculating the amount owed for the care home stay, the authority has also been told to review policies and pay £200 compensation to the man’s daughter, who brought the complaint.

The report says Mr N first needed domiciliary care in 2018 following a number of falls requiring hospital admissions, but the council had trouble finding a provider able to visit him.

A contract was eventually agreed, but was terminated by the company after a few weeks.

By the end of that year, the council was again struggling to find a care provider and suggested he move temporarily into a care home.

The report says: “The council’s records suggest it could not put in place a care package for Mr N in 2018 because it did not have any providers able to take the package.

“I understand… this was because many providers would not come out to rural areas.

“The council accepts that, at the time, ‘…due to insufficient market availability… it was unable to deliver the care and support in Mr N’s home’. That was fault.”

A two-week placement was arranged to begin on December 28, but the council asked to extend his stay because it was “too busy” to find a home care provider for him. The ombudsman says this was a fault.

The council eventually arranged a domiciliary care company to visit Mr N at the required times, and he returned home on April 11, 2019.

Shropshire Council was contacted for comment.