Summary: Ms B complains the Council did not deal with her complaint about incorrect charges for her son, Mr C’s, care in accordance with its procedure. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council. The Council agrees to pay Ms B £50 in recognition of the time and trouble pursuing the complaint and Mr C £100 for the distress he experienced.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains the Council incorrectly charged her son, Mr C, for care and sent him a number of letters about the money he owed. She says this caused Mr C unnecessary distress. Ms B also complains the Council did not deal with her complaint in a satisfactory manner and there were delays. This caused Ms B injustice in the time it took pursuing the complaint and the stress and frustration she experienced during the complaints process.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I investigated the complaint as detailed above.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. During my investigation I considered:
• Ms B’s complaint and the information she provided;
• documents provided by the Council; and
• the Council’s complaints policy.
5. Ms B and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr C is an adult, he has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and Asperger’s syndrome. As part of his care package he receives some financial support from the Council and also pays an amount towards his care through a personal contribution.
7. In September 2017 Mr C signed a Financial Declaration form to confirm his capital was worth more than £23,250. The upper capital limit is currently £23,250, above which a person will have to pay the full cost of their care.
8. In March 2018 the Council wrote to Mr C to inform him that because his capital exceeded the threshold he would be charged the full cost of his personal budget.
9. Mr C contacted the Council by telephone on several occasions between April and September 2018 to discuss the outstanding amount the Council said he owed.
10. In December 2018 Ms B complained to the Council, on behalf of Mr C. She complained Mr C was being overcharged for his care. She says the Council sent a significant amount of reminder letters to Mr C, which caused him upset and stress.
11. The Council responded in January 2019 and apologised for the distress it caused Mr C by sending the letters. It said:

“please accept my sincere apologies for any distress caused to Mr C by the number of reminders for payment that have been sent. I am very sorry that the Council has not been able to resolve this matter from the number of times he has contacted us, which is not acceptable”.

The Council agreed it would not send any further letters, because of the distress it caused Mr C. Ms B says it continued to send letters after this agreement.

12. I cannot say at what point the Council became aware that Mr C’s capital was below the upper limit. However, once it was made aware there was a delay in the Council acting on this information. The Council acknowledges this fault and has apologised to Mr C for the distress this may have caused him (see paragraph 11).
13. Ms B contacted the Council in February because she had not received a response. She contacted them again in April 2019 because she did not feel the Council’s response addressed all her concerns.
14. In April 2019 Ms B complained to the Ombudsman as she remained unhappy with the Council’s response.
15. The Ombudsman made enquires with the Council and it said Ms B would receive a response to her complaint in June 2019.
16. The Council wrote to Ms B in June 2019. In this letter the Council:
• Apologised for the unacceptable delay.
• Acknowledged the Council assessor had overlooked the notification that Mr C’s capital had dropped below the threshold to be charged for services. The Council apologised for this and agreed to backdate the outcome.
• Confirmed the correct charges and arranged for the administration fees to be removed “as a gesture of goodwill”.
17. In response to my enquiries the Council said:
• It was Mr C’s responsibility to tell the Council if his capital exceeded the threshold of £23,250.
• There were outstanding issues following the Council’s stage one response and it requested the Financial Team provide a second response to Ms B to clarify these issues.
• In order to ensure the Council was charging Mr C the correct amount it requested further financial information from Mr C which caused a delay in its response.
• ‘given the delay in completing the Council’s consideration of Ms B’s complaint and as there were shortcomings in keeping Ms B updated throughout the process, the Council offer Ms B a payment of £50 in seeking to remedy this matter’.

Analysis

18. Ms B says the Council has now issued a bill for the correct amount owed by Mr C for his care. She is satisfied with the Council response to this part of the complaint. The information I received from the Council shows it has resolved this issue and ensured Mr C was charged the correct amount for his care. However, there was a delay in how they responded to this issue. The Council has accepted this fault and apologised to Mr C.
19. The Council has also accepted there was fault in the way it continued to contact Mr C about the money he owed, despite his attempts to resolve this with the Council. The Council has apologised to Mr C for any distress this may have caused.
20. Ms B in unhappy with the way the Council handled her complaint and the amount of time it took to resolve the incorrect charges. Some of this delay was due to the Council requesting further financial information from Mr C to ensure he would be charged correctly. However, there was a further delay of four-months before the complaint process was completed. I cannot establish the reason for this delay and the lack of communication with Ms B during this period. The Council has accepted this fault and offered Ms B £50 to remedy the injustice caused as a result of the delays handling her complaint.

Agreed action

21. The Council should, within 4 weeks of my final decision:
1. Pay Ms B £50 for her time and trouble pursuing this complaint.
2. Pay Mr C £100 in recognition of the distress caused to him.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I find fault with the way the Council dealt with Ms B’s complaint. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Ms B and Mr C to remedy the injustice caused to them.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman