Summary: Mr B complained about the Council overcharging, the late Mr C for care services. We find the Council was at fault for the errors, but we are satisfied it has taken appropriate action to put matters right.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that Cumbria County Council (the Council):
• delayed in establishing it had significantly overcharged his late father, Mr C for care services since 2014;
• ignored complaints from Mr B that it was impossible to check the invoices as they did not contain sufficient information;
• failed to explain how and why the charges arose or reassure him that others had not been affected in the same way.

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 complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. I have written to Mr B and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B is the executor for the late Mr C’s estate. Mr C had been receiving a package of home care for some years. He paid the full charge to the Council. In January 2019 he went into hospital and died on 2 February. On 3 February 2019 the Council sent an invoice for care charges to Mr C for the period from 7 January to 3 February 2019.
6. Mr B complained to the Council on 13 February 2019 that the invoice was wrong as Mr C had been in hospital. He also complained more generally about invoices issued since the accounting system had been changed in 2016. He said they no longer contained a breakdown of the care given and the hourly rate charged so it was difficult to check if the charges were right.
7. The Council replied on 26 February 2019, apologising for the error. It said the agency had not provided the information about Mr C going into hospital. It had amended the account.
8. Mr B escalated his complaint: He was unhappy with the explanation given and still considered the invoices were difficult to understand. He wanted to know how the Council had ensured no future errors would be made. He also asked for details of all the charges since November 2012.
9. The Council responded in March 2019. It apologised for the error and for the distress caused. It said it had amended the account which was now in credit by about £350 and would arrange a refund to the estate. It said it was reviewing the statements to make them easier to understand and it explained the administrative charge.
10. Mr B remained dissatisfied and requested a full investigation of the accounting system. He provided his records regarding the hours of attendance by carers back to 2012.
11. The Council wrote to Mr B on 19 June 2019 after carrying out a review of Mr C’s account. It sent him a breakdown of all the charges. It had identified overcharging for a period in September and October 2018 amounting to £2870 and an adjustment of five hours for carer absence in 2015/16 amounting to £70.
12. The Council apologised for the errors and said it would refund the money to the estate. It also said it passed on the details of the errors to the Lessons Learned group and was checking if any other accounts had been affected.
13. Mr B said he was not satisfied with the explanations, he had been raising issues about the charging since 2016, he had not had an apology from the Chief Executive, he wanted to know if others had been similarly affected and what changes had been made.
14. The Council sent a final reply on 1 July 2019. It apologised again and said it had done a thorough investigation of how the overcharging occurred. It had introduced a new procedure and a new monitoring process, trained all staff in the new procedures and was reviewing all cases to check for errors.
15. Mr B then complained to the Ombudsman.
16. In response to my enquiries the Council explained in more detail the reasons of the overcharging: in terms of the largest amount, the error was due to a temporary increase in care between 3 September 2018 and 18 November 2018. The increase was backdated to September 2018 which resulted in Mr C being charged twice. The other smaller amounts were due to a delay in the provider informing the Council that Mr C had gone into hospital and five hours of carer absences in 2015/16.
17. Mr B has provided evidence a relative of Mr C’s queried the bills on several occasions between 2016 to 2018 and raised concerns about the invoices being difficult to understand. The Council said it had a record of Mr B raising a query about the charges in April 2018, but it had been resolved. The next record of contact was in February 2019 as detailed above.
18. The Council is developing a new invoice template to improve the information provided. It had reviewed all similar cases (full fee payers with backdated service provision) and identified 42 where backdated care had been added to the accounts. In some cases amendments had already been actioned but it completed the others. It was also carrying out a second review of cases where people have a maximum assessed charge but the charge for their care is less than the maximum and a backdated service provision had been applied. The Council also detailed the changes to its procedures to prevent the problem recurring.

Analysis

19. I understand Mr B is aggrieved at the fact Mr C was significantly overcharged for care and it only came to light as a result of his persistence. The Council was at fault in having a system error which affected a significant amount of people. However, I am satisfied that the Council has taken appropriate action to rectify the problem once it was discovered.
20. Three errors affected Mr C’s care charges. The first was due to carer absences during 2015/2016. This only involved five hours and was identified when Mr B provided his records of carer attendance. This does not appear to be a systemic issue. The Council is developing a new invoice template to provide more information about the charges so this will hopefully help to alert service-users more quickly to errors of this kind.
21. The third error was due to a delay in the care provider alerting the Council that Mr C had gone into hospital. To receive this invoice shortly after Mr C died must have been distressing. But the Council has apologised and amended the invoice to correctly reflect the situation.
22. The second error was the most significant and arose from an error in how the accounting system dealt with backdated charges. The Council said it identified the error only when it printed off the breakdown of charges in response to Mr B’s request. I understand Mr B finds this unsatisfactory but there is no evidence that Mr B or the relative raised queries about this period or that the Council should have discovered the fault sooner.
23. The Council has refunded the money to Mr C’s account, apologised for the error, made changes to its procedures, trained staff in the new procedures, identified other people affected by the system error and is developing a new form of invoice to provide more information to service-users. I am satisfied this action was adequate to put matters right and hopefully prevent future recurrences.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation as I am satisfied the Council has taken sufficient and appropriate action to put right the injustice arising from the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman