Essex County Council (18 006 323)

Category : Adult care services > Charging

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 23 Apr 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Miss X complains that the Council charged her sister, Miss Y when she had previously been exempt, and did not tell her. She says it kept changing the amount and allowed a debt of over £4,000 to build up. She says this caused Miss Y financial hardship and she has had to cancel her care. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X, complains on behalf of her sister, Miss Y. She says the Council:
    • Charged Miss Y when she had previously been exempt.
    • Failed to tell Miss Y that she would have to pay for her care.
    • Kept changing the amount Miss Y had to pay.
    • Allowed a debt of nearly £4,000 to build up.
  2. Miss X says this has caused Miss Y financial hardship and she is unable to source care independently.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
  2. If we are satisfied with a council’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)
  3. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)

Miss Y has consented to Miss X complaining about this matter on her behalf.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information from the Complainant and from the Council.
  2. I sent both parties a copy of my draft decision for comment and took account of the comments I received in response.

Back to top

What I found

  1. The Care Act 2014 gives councils the power to charge for care and support services they provide or arrange. Charges may only cover the cost the council incurs. Where a council decides to charge it must do so in line with the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations. It must assess how much the person can afford to pay by completing a financial assessment.

What happened

  1. Miss Y received eight hours support each week with cleaning and going out socially. On 7 November 2016, a social worker referred Miss Y for a financial assessment which Miss X completed. This assessment found Miss Y should pay £58.24 towards her care each week.
  2. In December, a social worker visited to complete a review. She discussed finances and disability related expenditure. Miss X complained to the Council about the charges as in 2007, Miss Y had been exempted from paying a contribution. The Council explained that the financial assessment was necessary and that Miss Y would be expected to pay towards her care. It said there might be cheaper ways to source the support, and offered to provide some information.
  3. In February 2017, Miss X wrote to the Council appealing against the withdrawal of Miss Y’s exemption. The Council responded in writing to Miss X confirming that the circumstances which caused the exemption, no longer applied and Miss Y was no longer exempt.
  4. In March, the Council telephoned Miss X and advised her that Miss Y was expected to pay the assessed contribution.
  5. In April, Miss Y’s contribution towards her weekly care costs was now £83.07. The Council sent a letter confirming this.
  6. On 9 January 2018, the Council completed a financial assessment and found that Miss Y should pay £35.32 weekly towards the cost of her care. It backdated this amount because it had not previously allowed for some disability related expenditure.
  7. In March, a social worker discussed Miss Y’s debt with Miss Y and Miss X. They agreed to pay the contribution and begin to repay the debt through a payment plan.
  8. On 5 April, Miss X advised the Council that she would cancel Miss Y’s care package from the end of the month and that Miss Y would pay £10 per month.
  9. The annual revised financial assessment for 2018/19 stated she could afford to pay £42.57 towards her care.
  10. The Council advised Miss X that the debt was £3924.60 and it required a payment of at least £40 per month. Miss X says the Council did not deal with her complaint until January 2018, so allowed the debt to build unnecessarily.

Was there fault which caused injustice?

  1. The Council reconsidered Miss Y’s longstanding exemption and found the reasons for the exemption no longer applied. I found no fault here.
  2. I found the Council had provided Miss X and Miss Y with all the necessary information about the charges and sufficient notice of each change. Annual uplifts are applied each April to coincide with the uplifts in benefits. Otherwise, any changes are due to new information or changes in circumstances. This is usual practice and I found no fault here.
  3. Miss X is right that the Council did not take much action between April 2017 and January 2018. However, by then it had been clear that Miss Y needed to pay the assessed contribution and had discussed this at length and provided written information. It was not fault by the Council which allowed the debt of £4,000 to build up. The debt arose because Miss Y did not pay her contribution although the Council had explained she needed to. The Council had explained adequately and provided all the necessary information. It had also involved both Miss Y and Miss X appropriately. I found no fault here.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold Miss X’s complaints that the Council:
    • Charged Miss Y when she had previously been exempt.
    • Failed to tell Miss Y that she would have to pay for her care.
    • Kept changing the amount Miss Y had to pay.
    • Allowed a debt of nearly £4,000 to build up.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings