Summary: The Council is at fault for failing to provide accurate financial assessments about charges for community services. This has caused the complainants uncertainty and anxiety. The Council has agreed to apologise for the confusion caused, meet with the complainants to complete a new financial assessment and; make a payment of £200 for the uncertainty and anxiety its failures caused.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr C, complains on behalf of his wife, whom I refer to as Mrs C. Mr C complains the Council has not carried out financial assessments for home support services correctly. Mr C says that this has resulted in the Council over charging Mrs C.
2. Mr C would like the Council to complete a proper financial assessment.

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 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 from a person affected by the matter in the complaint, or from someone the person has authorised in writing to act for him or her. (section 26A or 34C, Local Government Act 1974)
6. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I read the papers provided by Mr C and spoke with him about his complaint. I made enquiries of the Council and considered information that it provided. I considered the relevant law, statutory guidance, and local policy as detailed below.
8. I have written to Mr C and the Council with my draft decision and given them an opportunity to comment.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

9. The Care Act 2014, Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014, and Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2018 sets out what councils should do when financially assessing people for home support services.
10. Paragraph 8.16 of the statutory guidance says a council,
11. “must carry out a financial assessment of what the person can afford to pay and, once complete, it must give a written record of that assessment to the person…….. It should explain how the assessment has been carried out, what the charge will be and how often it will be made…….. The local authority should ensure that this is provided in a manner that the person can easily understand, in line with its duties on providing information and advice.”
12. The Council’s policy allows officers to treat people as single even if they are part of a couple if this would reduce their charge.

What happened

13. The Council provided Mrs C with care at home after she left hospital in late 2017. Since then the Council has assessed her contribution towards her care. This has resulted in six different weekly calculations ranging from £56.86 to £14.78. Some of these calculations treat Mrs C as a single person, while others as a part of a couple.
14. The Council visited Mr and Mrs C twice during this period to discuss the financial assessment and to explain why it was treating Mrs C as a single person. It also spoke with workers from the Carers Unit and Citizen’s Advice Bureau.
15. The Council has accepted an error occurred between October 2018 and June 2019. This was because of a new computer system which failed to ignore the savings credit part of Mrs C’s income. During this period the Council accepts it overcharged Mrs C £18.24 each week.
16. The Council explained to Mr C the charging rules allow it to assess Mrs C as a single person if it results in her receiving a lower charge.
17. The Council accepts it sent a number of letters and made amendments which has caused confusion. It says this was because Mr C provided piece meal information and asked the Council to carry out financial assessments for Mrs C as part of a couple.
18. In response to my enquiries the Council says it is reviewing its financial processes so that it is as transparent as possible. It also suggests meeting with Mr C to listen to his concerns, to ensure it has all the relevant information to calculate an accurate charge for services.
19. Mr C says he is not trying to avoid paying charges, but wants a correct invoice.

Was there fault causing injustice?

20. The Council tried to explain the charges to Mr and Mrs C in writing, face-to-face and via different “advocates”. This was mainly because Mr C was confused about why the Council was treating Mrs C as a single person.
21. The Council explained this was to Mrs C’s advantage as it reduced her charge. As this is part of the Council’s policy and financially benefited Mrs C I find no fault in the Council considering Mrs C as a single person.
22. I am however unable to say whether Mrs C’s initial charges were correct. This is because the financial breakdown does not include whether the savings credit element was disregarded. I do not consider this shows transparency as required by the statutory guidance. Mr and Mrs C therefore have uncertainty about whether the initial charge was correct.
23. The Council has accepted that Mrs C’s charges from October 2018 were wrong. The Council’s failure to monitor the implications of a new computer system is fault. As a result, Mr C became more confused and anxious that the Council was wrongly charging Mrs C. Indeed, the charge nearly doubled.
24. The Council has corrected the error and the most recent financial assessment includes the savings credit element which is disregarded. It has also agreed to meet with Mr and Mrs C to complete a new financial assessment to make sure that it has correctly recorded information.

Agreed action

25. I consider, and the Council has agreed, that the following actions are suitable to remedy the complaint:-
1. apologise to Mr and Mrs C for the confusion and uncertainty caused by incorrect invoices;
2. meet with Mr and Mrs C to undertake a new financial assessment. Officers should liaise with Mr and Mrs C so they have support during the meeting such as an advocate or a family member if they wish. During the assessment, and with Mr and Mrs C’s agreement, the assessors should calculate and explain the charges treating Mrs C both as an individual and part of a couple so they can see the difference, if any, in charge. The Council should consider back dating the charge to the start of Mrs C’s service;
3. make a payment of £200 to Mr C for the confusion and anxiety caused by the invoicing error;
4. as part of the Council’s review of its charging processes to put in place procedures to identify potential system failures; such as random checks.
26. The Council should complete (a)-(c) within one month of the final decision and (d) within two months of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have found fault by the Council’s failure to properly assess Mrs C for home care charges. This has caused Mr and Mrs C confusion and anxiety.
28. I have closed the complaint based on the agreed actions above.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman