Summary: Mrs D complained about how the Council managed charging for her father’s care. However, there was no fault in how the Council dealt with the matters raised by Mrs D.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs D, complained on behalf of her father, whom I shall refer to as Mr Z. Her complaint is about how the Council charged Mr Z for his care. Mrs D says:
• The Council has failed to provide information to support the invoices her father has received for his care.
• The Council delayed in responding to Mrs D’s questions about the invoices.
• The family were not told about additional charges for bank holidays.
• The Council has passed the debt to bailiffs, despite the account still being in dispute.

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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and information received from Mrs D; and
• reviewed and considered information received from the Council; and
• communicated with Mrs D about her complaint.
5. I also sent a draft version of this document to both parties and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. Councils can charge people towards the cost of a care home placement and home care they arrange. They complete a financial assessment, applying charging rules in regulations and guidance (Care and Support Statutory Guidance (CSSG)) to determine how much a person pays.
7. In May 2018, the Council carried out a financial assessment and concluded that the contributions for Mr Z’s care would be approximately £90 per week. It wrote to Mrs D explaining how it had calculated this.
8. In September, the Council carried out a further financial assessment and reduced the contribution. It again wrote to Mrs D. The Council subsequently backdated the reduction.

What happened

9. In June 2018, Mrs D contacted the Council’s Financial Team and asked it to provide evidence that the invoiced care had been provided to Mr Z.
10. The Council explained the care provider sends the Council weekly invoices for the care provided, and Mrs D would need to ask the care provider for more detailed information about the care it had provided to Mr Z.
11. The Council told Mrs D how much Mr Z’s care contributions were, and explained if care costs were lower than this, he would be charged the total care costs, but if they were higher than this, he would pay the full contribution.
12. Mrs D asked the Council to provide her with weekly invoices along with evidence that shows what care has been provided so she can cross check this information.
13. The Council said invoices are sent every four weeks and are accompanied with the number of hours of care provided. Mrs D continued to email the Council stating the account was in dispute, and payment would not be made until she received the requested information.
14. The queries were passed to the Council’s Commissioning Team. The Council say, after checking care records and speaking to the Care Provider, it identified no issues with the level of care received compared to that charged by the Care Provider. The Council say the Commissioning Team called Mrs D and left a voicemail explaining this, but she did not call them back.
15. The Council continued to send Mrs D invoices, and in October she emailed the Financial Team again, requesting evidence to support its invoicing. The Financial Team repeated its position regarding this, but Mrs D remained dissatisfied with its response.
16. The queries were again passed on to the Commissioning Team and in January, it sent Mrs D a spreadsheet which showed how many hours of care Mr Z received and how much the Council had been charged by the care provider. This covered approximately 10 months of care.
17. In February, Mrs D responded in which she raised several questions, including how the care provider had calculated its total weekly fee and why she had been charged a higher amount for bank holidays when she was not informed of this. Mrs D also asked for invoices to be sent to her electronically every week in the future.
18. As these questions related to invoicing, they were passed back to the Financial Team to respond, which it did so in May.
19. The Council explained that the amount her father was billed was the minimum contribution, which was calculated in his financial assessment. It said it was not possible to send invoices out electronically, nor was it possible to send invoices out weekly. The Council said the account had now been passed to bailiffs and encouraged Mrs C to make payments.

Analysis

20. The Council is entitled to charge people for care. It has acted correctly in carrying out a financial assessment and setting out the contributions for Mr Z.
21. Mrs D complains that the Council did not provide responses to her questions about the invoicing for her father’s care. However, having considered the correspondence between the two parties, I do consider that the Council provided answers to Mrs D’s questions. I therefore do not find fault with how it responded to her.
22. Mrs D complains that the Council took too long sending her evidence which showed the care Mr Z had been provided. While I do note that there was a delay in the commissioning team eventually providing Mrs D with this information, I do not consider that this caused her a significant injustice.
23. This is because the Council has been consistent in explaining to Mrs D that, apart from when Mr Z first entered the care home, the cost of his care has been significantly higher that his minimum contributions. The information the commissioning team provided Mrs D supported this claim.
24. Action to recover the debt was not taken by the Council, until some five months after this information was provided. Mrs D has not provided the Council with any evidence to suggest Mr Z had not received the care that the care provider says it provided during this period. I therefore am unable to conclude that the Council is at fault for taking steps to recover the debt.
25. The Council has explaining to Mrs D that it does not provide electronic invoices and is unable to send out invoices weekly. It is not for the Ombudsman to question how the Council administers its invoicing, so I do not find fault with this response.
26. Mrs D says it was never explained to her that there would be an extra charge for care provided on bank holidays. However, there is no evidence that Mrs D was charged extra on months where a bank holiday falls.
27. The Council has explained that where a care provider charges it extra for bank holidays, this cost is not forwarded on to the service user. I therefore do not find any evidence of fault or injustice with this element of Mrs D’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have concluded my investigation with a finding that there was no fault in how the Council dealt with the matters raised by Mrs D.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman