Summary: Mr X, on behalf of his wife, complained the Council asked them to sign a charging letter for a package of care without completing a financial assessment or giving any indication of what the cost would be. The Ombudsman does not intend to pursue this complaint further as the Council has provided a suitable remedy by apologising, cancelling the first invoice and making a goodwill gesture of £50.

The complaint

1. Mr X, on behalf of his wife, complains the Council request they sign a contract for a care package without a financial assessment or any indication of what the cost would be.
2. Mr X says the uncertainty regarding the costs caused distress.

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)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant’s representative;
• discussed the issues with the complainant’s representative; and
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. After a period in hospital, Mrs X was discharged home with a package of care. Carers visited twice a day to help her dress and wash in the morning and then to help her get ready for bed in the evening. She was not charged for this package of care for the first six weeks after her discharge.
7. The Council asked Mrs X to sign a form stating that from 19 July the care service provided would be chargeable and a new contract would start. Mr X asked what the cost of the service would be and he says no one was able to tell him. Mr X says he spoke to a manager on the telephone who was unable to give any indication of the cost. Mr X says he could not even find out what the hourly charge was for the service. Someone from the Council’s finance section promised to call Mr X to discuss costs but this never happened.
8. Mr X involved his MP who wrote to the Council. The Council responded on 28 July. It said that while it must carry out a financial assessment, the charging rules did not stipulate this must happen before the care was arranged. It said that completing a financial assessment prior to providing services could result in care no longer being available. It said it aimed to complete an assessment as quickly as possible and would ensure people were given a reasonable length of time to pay any backdated charges.
9. Mr X was not satisfied with this response and so made a formal complaint to the Council on 23 August. The Council responded saying it recognised it was not ideal to complete the financial assessment after the chargeable service had started. It said that while staff are expected to provide general information and advice about financial assessments, they are not expected to be able to provide specific financial detail or advice that relates to the particular financial circumstances of a person or carer. The Council upheld the complaint saying there were delays in its responses to Mr X and that more could have been done to advise him about the potential cost for the chargeable service. It offered Mr X £50 as a goodwill gesture for the time and trouble taken in making the complaint.
10. Mr X emailed the Council on 23 September. He said while he appreciated the goodwill offer, there was no indication that the original invoice had been set aside which he would expect as his complaint had been upheld. The Council responded on 15 November saying it had reviewed his complaint and discussed the matter with the financial services team. It acknowledged that after Mr X raised concerns originally, action should have been taken to complete the financial assessment as quickly as possible rather than within the 15-day time period. It said it did not expect Mr X to pay the original invoice amount of £139.23. It again apologised to Mr X.
11. Mr X then contacted the Ombudsman because he was concerned about the Council’s actions in a more general way. He does not consider it acceptable that a client incurs an unknown debt which is invoiced a month later. He believes this causes unnecessary suffering and stress because people do not know what they will be expected to pay.

Analysis

12. Mr X has complained that he was asked to sign a charging letter for care services without the Council giving him any indication of the cost of these services. The Council upheld Mr X’s complaint saying it could have done more to provide reassurance and ensured the financial assessment was completed more quickly. It provided a remedy by cancelling the first invoice and making a payment to recognise Mr X’s time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. I am satisfied a suitable remedy has been provided.
13. Mr X is satisfied with the actions taken by the Council to remedy the injustice caused to him and his wife. However, he has concerns that other service users may be asked to sign a charging letter without knowing the cost to them. While I understand Mr X's reasons for wanting the Ombudsman to pursue this further, it is not appropriate to do so as part of this investigation. The Ombudsman will consider this wider issue as part of another investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I will now complete my investigation as the Council has already taken appropriate action to remedy Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman