Summary: Ms C complains the Council failed to tell her, in a timely manner, that there would be an increase in the cost of her mother’s homecare package, and how much this increase would be. The Ombudsman decided to uphold Ms C’s complaint. The Council has agreed to adjust the outstanding invoice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms C, complained to us on behalf of her mother, whom I shall call Mrs M. Ms C complains the Council failed to tell her, in a timely manner, that there would be an increase in the cost of her mother’s homecare package, and how much this increase would be. As a result, she received an invoice five months after the change, for an additional £2,333.53. Ms C says that, if she had known this at the time, she would have continued with the morning call (at the increased rate) but would have stopped the evening call.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I have considered the information I have received from Ms C, which included her complaint to the Council, her subsequent appeal and the Council’s responses. I shared a copy of my draft decision statement with Ms C and the Council and considered any comments I received before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mrs M was receiving a care package of one visit in the morning and one visit in the evening. The care was commissioned by the Council, but Mrs M paid for the entire cost of the care package herself. Each visit was carried out by one care worker.
6. However, on the morning of 26 February 2018, two care workers arrived to provide her mother’s morning care. Ms C says she contacted the care agency, who said the care agency increased the number of carers due to health and safety concerns. Ms C says she asked the care manager if this meant there would be an increase in the cost of the care package. However, Ms C says the care manager told her this would not be the case, because the care agency had put the extra carer in place for the benefit of safeguarding its staff. Ms C says she put the same question to the care manager again several weeks later, and the manager provided the same response.
7. Ms C told me she also double-checked the monthly invoices her mother was receiving, which also did not show an increase in the care fees.
8. As such, she was very surprised when her mother received an invoice on 1 July 2018 for an additional £2,333.53, the additional cost for the second carer from 26 February to 1 July 2018. Ms C immediately stopped the evening visits but decided to continue with the double up morning visits. Since then, Ms C has provided the evening support to her mother herself.
9. Ms C made a complaint to the Council, followed by an appeal, in which she said she would have made the above change, if she had known about the increased costs at the time.
10. In the Council’s complaint response, the Council said that:
• The care provider spoke with a duty worker from the Council in February 2018, to explain why there was a need to add a second carer to visits. The duty worker called Ms C to carry out a telephone review of her mother’s care. The duty worker acknowledged he did not tell Ms C there would be an increase in the cost of the care package.
• There was a delay by the Council in ensuring the monthly invoices reflected the increase in cost.
11. The Council apologised for the above faults and offered the following remedy:
• AM: Once Ms C knew there would be an added charge for the second carer in the morning, she decided to continue with the AM call nevertheless. As such, the Council will not reimburse any costs related to the morning call.
• PM: Once Ms C knew there would be an additional charge for the second carer in the evening, she decided to stop the evening call altogether. As such, the Council will reimburse the cost of the second carer between 26 February and 1 July 2018.
12. Ms C was unhappy that the Council had not decided to wave the entire additional costs of the extra care (£2,333.53) and submitted an appeal.
13. In response, the Council said that Ms C also had a responsibility with regards to what happened. It said Ms C should have assumed there would be an increase in the cost of the care package in proportion to the increased support. As such, it would not wave the entire invoice.

Assessment

14. The Council has acknowledged there is no evidence that Ms C was told in February 2018, that there would be an increase in the costs of her mother’s care. This is fault. Ms C says she was told there would not be an increase, and there was an unreasonable delay in the invoices reflecting any change in costs. This is fault.
15. With reference to paragraph six and seven above, my view is that Ms C did try to take reasonable steps to establish if there would be an increase in the cost of her mother’s care package. She was subsequently assured there would not be an increase by:
• The care provider who said (on two occasions) that there would not be an increase, because the second carer was attending for the benefit of their own staff.
• The absence of an increase being reflected in the monthly invoices.
16. As such, I found Ms C was therefore not partially to be blamed for what happened.
17. In determining a remedy, the Ombudsman aims to put the complainant back in the position they would have been in if nothing had gone wrong. As such, if the Council had told Ms C about the increase in the charge in February 2018, Ms C would have:
• Accepted and paid for the double up morning care support, but
• Stopped the double up care in the evening.
18. As such, I found the Council should only charge Mrs M for the double up morning care, between 26 February and 1 July 2018, and not for any of the evening care.

Agreed action

19. I recommended that the Council, within four weeks of my decision, should adjust the disputed invoice in line with paragraph 18 above.
20. The Council has told me it has accepted my recommendation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman