Summary: Ms X complains that the Council did not inform her about changes to Ms Y’s contribution to her care and the way it dealt with her complaints about this. She says she ended up with significant arrears which she cannot afford to pay. The Ombudsman finds fault in the Council’s handling of her complaint but not in the information it provided about the increase. The Council has already apologised and taken action to prevent similar problems in future, so he makes no recommendations.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms X, complains on behalf of her daughter, Ms Y, that the Council:
• did not advise her of changes to Ms Y’s client contribution in September 2016 and April 2018.
• did not respond to her complaints properly.
2. Ms X would like the Council to write off Ms Y’s debt.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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). Ms Y has authorised Ms X to complain on her behalf.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from the Complainant and from the Council.
7. 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

Background

Financial assessment

8. Councils have discretion to charge for non-residential services. Where a council decides to charge it must do so in line with the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations and have regard to the Care and Support Statutory Guidance (CSSG). 
9. Where a council has decided to charge, it must carry out a financial assessment of what a person can afford to pay. The council must not charge more than the cost it incurs in meeting the assessed needs of the individual. It must also regularly reassess a person’s ability to meet the cost of their care to take account of any changes in their resources.  

What happened

10. Ms X is appointed by the Department of Work and Pensions to deal with Ms Y’s benefits (appointee). Ms Y was assessed to contribute £7.81 to the cost of her care.
11. On 10 June 2016, the Council sent Ms X a letter about changes to financial assessments based on the Care Act 2014. It said Ms Y’s maximum contribution was now £31.70 and this would apply from 12 September 2016. It had delayed the increase for three months to allow people time to adjust. It said this should be paid into the direct payments account at least every four weeks.
12. On 31 August, Council records show Ms X telephoned the Council about the surplus in the direct payment account which it had not dealt with. The Council advised Ms X that the standing order for Ms Y’s contribution needed to be changed to £31.70 from 12 September.
13. On 2 September, the Council sent a letter to Ms X advising that it had reclaimed the surplus and that the contribution would change to £31.70 from 12 September.
14. On 31 March 2017, the Council wrote to Ms X advising the contribution would increase to £32.75 per week. This was the annual review.
15. On 11 April, Ms X telephoned the Council to query the annual review. One of the advisors told her the contribution should have increased from September. Ms X says this is the first she knew of this. Ms X says she increased the contribution payments at this point.
16. On 13 April, the Council sent another letter enclosing a copy of the June 2016 letter.
17. On 3 October 2017, Ms X received an invoice for the outstanding contribution. She said she knew nothing about this until she received the invoices.
18. On 7 October 2017, Ms X wrote to the direct payments team at the Council saying she wanted to appeal the invoice. She asked how the Council expected her to pay for arrears when she knew nothing about it. She said it was impossible for her to pay it and it was clearly a mistake.
19. On 26 March 2018, the Council wrote to Ms X to advise of further changes to Ms Y’s contribution. This advised that her contribution would now be £17 per week payable from 9 April.
20. On 10 April, the direct payments team at the Council wrote to Ms X. It apologised for the delay looking into her concerns and responding. It said the finance and benefits team were better placed to deal with her query so an officer from that team would be in touch soon.
21. On 4 June, Ms X wrote to the direct payments team again because an officer advised her to submit another complaint. She said the Council had told her it would be looking into her complaint and she didn’t understand why she should need to write again. She said again that she shouldn’t have to pay the arrears when she hadn’t known about the increase. She said the officer said she would send her some information but it never arrived and Ms X had to telephone the Council. She then received it. She asked whether letters were actually being sent out.
22. On 14 June, the Council’s complaints team wrote to advise it had received her complaint. It set out a summary of her complaint and the outcomes she wanted. It gave the details of the manager who would look into her concerns and said he would reply within 10 to 20 working days. It then sent a letter to update her when it could not respond in that time.
23. On 19 July, the Council wrote to Ms X giving a full response to her complaint. It apologised for the delay in responding to the issues she raised. It set out the correspondence the Council had sent and the telephone contact in August 2016. It said there had been several delays in information being passed to the correct team and apologised for the frustration this had caused. It said it would be reviewing how it deals with correspondence to ensure it was dealt with in a more timely way. It also said the invoice was still payable and that she could contact the financial assessment team to discuss repayment options if she could not pay it in one go.
24. The Council says it has completed an internal restructure and the direct payment team is now located within the adult social care department. It says this is intended to prevent delays with information sharing between the direct payment team and the finance and benefits assessment team.
25. The letters from the Council were all correctly addressed.

Was there fault which caused injustice?

26. The Council was at fault in the significant delay in responding to Ms X’s letter of October 2017, taking nearly nine months to deal with the issues she raised. However, it has apologised and taken action to prevent similar faults in future so I find no outstanding injustice here. Once it did deal with her concerns through its complaints process, it did this appropriately and I found no fault with the complaint handling at this stage.
27. The Council sent several letters which Ms X did not receive and several which she did. I cannot say, on the balance of probability, it was the Council’s fault Ms X did not receive them all.
28. Additionally, I am satisfied the Council spoke to Ms X in August 2016 and advised her of the change before it took effect in September 2016.
29. Although I have found fault with the Council’s actions, I have found no outstanding injustice and so make no recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have completed my investigation and have not upheld Ms X’s complaint that the Council did not advise her of changes to Ms Y’s client contribution in September 2016 and April 2018.
31. I have upheld Ms X’s complaint that the Council did not respond to her complaints properly. The Council has already taken action to address this and I am satisfied that any injustice has been remedied.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman