Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (05C08648)
Adult care services Maladministration causing injustice
29 January 2007
Oldham Council’s consultation on changes to care service charges failed to tell service users exactly what the proposals were. The Council claimed that to give consultees the full information might prejudice the Cabinet’s eventual decision. The Ombudsman says this was “as absurd as informing neighbours that a planning application has been received but that they cannot know what the application is for as it might prejudice the decision of the Planning Committee.”
In addition, the consultation letter was “extremely difficult to understand, complex and unfocussed". It was hard for respondents to know what they were being consulted on – and as this letter was going to some very vulnerable people, it was exceptionally ill-considered.
The Ombudsman upheld a complaint from a man whose wife used a day centre one day a week, and whose service charge rose from £1 (plus £6.50 transport and meal charges) to £46 a day for the same service. The Council has agreed to undertake a new, proper consultation exercise, apologise and pay compensation to the complainant.
‘Mr Howard’ (not his real name for legal reasons) is the sole carer for his wife, who suffers from dementia. They do not receive home care, but Mrs Howard uses a day centre one day a week, for which Mr Howard was paying the full charge.
He complained about the way the Council increased charges for its care services, and particularly about its consultation process. This, Mr Howard says, led him to pay an unreasonable amount for the service received by his wife, and caused him to spend considerable time and trouble in pursuing his complaint.
The Ombudsman found that the Council’s consultation was inadequate and was also extremely difficult to understand, being complex and unfocussed. This was particularly unfortunate given that the consultation process involved a number of very vulnerable people. Worse, the results of the consultation were not properly reported to the Council’s Cabinet. These failures were maladministration.
The Ombudsman recommended to the Council that it should:
- undertake a new consultation;
- apologise to Mr Howard and his wife;
- provide Mr Howard with a clear explanation of his wife’s charges; and
- pay Mr Howard £500 for his time, trouble and distress.
The Council has agreed to comply with each of the Ombudsman’s recommendations.
Date Published: 23/01/09