Summary: Mr and Mrs B complained that the Council failed to explain in a timely and complete manner, how the charges for care for Mrs B’s mother, Mrs C arose. On the evidence available we find that the Council delayed excessively in amending the charges and sending out correct invoices. It exacerbated the confusion and frustration caused to Mr and Mrs B by its failure to attend a prearranged meeting or provide a full coherent explanation to them. The Council has agreed to waive the outstanding charge and pay Mr and Mrs B £150 for their time and trouble.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs B complain that Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) failed to explain how the charges for Mrs B’s late mother, Mrs C’s care arose. It has sent a variety of invoices with different amounts, unexplained credits and for periods after NHS funding was awarded. It also sent an invoice for a period after Mrs C died which was very upsetting.

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. Mr and Mrs B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms B’s mother went into a care home on 4 January 2019 for respite care. The charge was £138.10 per week. She became a permanent resident from 18 February 2019. The Council carried out a financial assessment and, on 6 March 2019, notified Mrs B that Mrs C’s contribution would be £63.66 per week. It said it would invoice her on a four-weekly basis and the social worker would inform her of the start date. From 1 April 2019 the charge increased to £65.97.
6. The Council did not authorise the residential care until 16 May 2019 so the first invoice for this was not raised until the next billing run on 24 June 2019. Prior to this date Mr and Mrs B had received invoices based on the higher respite charge.
7. Mr B complained in April that he did not understand the invoices and was concerned that attendance allowance had been taken into account in the financial assessment even though Mrs C was no longer receiving this. The Council arranged for Mr and Mrs B to attend a meeting with the finance department on 10 May 2019 to go through the figures. However, when they arrived for the meeting the Council apologised and said there was no-one from the finance team available to meet with them.
8. Mr B made a further complaint on 16 May 2019 and said he was still receiving invoices which were too high. He complained again on 20 June 2019 referring to a reply from the Council which he did not understand and saying he had received an invoice for one week in March for the higher charge.
9. The Council replied on 16 July 2019 saying the invoice for March was for four weeks’ respite not one. It also said it had now amended the account to end the respite charge with effect from 18 January 2019 and credit the following 10 weeks up until 31 March 2019. It confirmed Mrs C was being charged for her weekly contribution of £65.97 per week from 1 April 2019. The Council apologised for the time taken to respond to the complaint.
10. Mr B says he received an invoice on 5 July 2019 which he paid. In August 2019 Mr B complained to us. In October 2019 he said he had received invoices in August and September 2019, even though Mrs C had been awarded continuing health care (CHC) funding provided by the NHS in August 2019.
11. Mrs C died in October 2019. Mr B complained further that the Council had sent a further invoice for care charges in November 2019.
12. In response to my enquiries the Council provided spreadsheets showing the invoices sent and the charges credited. It said adult social care had not authorised the residential care provision until 16 May 2019, so the charges for this were not sent until 24 June 2019. Furthermore, adult social care had only finally authorised the respite care (from 4 to 18 January 2019), on 26 July 2019 so the invoices fully correcting the charges were not sent until 21 August 2019.
13. The Council said neither the care home nor the NHS had informed it that Mrs C had been awarded CHC funding. It apologised for the invoice sent in November 2019 but it was not aware Mrs C had died until Mr B informed it on 15 November 2019.
14. The Council says there is an outstanding balance of around £240 for the respite care in January 2019.

Analysis

15. The Council has taken too long to amend the charges for Mrs C’s care and failed to properly explain the situation to Mr and Mrs B. This has caused confusion and frustration at a difficult time.
16. The Council notified Mr and Mrs B on 6 March 2019 that Mrs C’s contribution would change due to the change in her care arrangements, but it did not send an amended invoice until 24 June 2019. This was fault. I consider it should have sent an amended invoice within a month of the notification, by the 6 April 2019. It then, inexplicably took a further two months to fully credit Mrs C’s account with the refund of the respite charges. This was further fault, made worse by the complete lack of apology or explanation for the delay.
17. This caused Mr and Mrs B significant confusion and uncertainty about whether the financial assessment had been done correctly. The Council exacerbated this impact by failing to provide a coherent explanation for the invoices until it responded to my enquiries in March 2020. Prior to this it had given no clear explanation to Mr and Mrs B as to why the charges and credits were so confusing and neither did it apologise for the length of time it had taken correct the account.
18. I also find it unacceptable that despite the credits made in July and August 2019, the Council still says there is an outstanding charge of £240 for respite care dating back over 12 months. This is further fault causing injustice particularly as Mrs C has since died.
19. The Council missed an opportunity in May 2019 to fully explain the situation to Mr and Mrs B, then to fully correct the account and clarify any outstanding charges. It further added to Mr and Mrs B’s distress that no member of the finance team was available for the meeting despite five weeks’ notice. This was fault.
20. I accept that it was not the Council’s fault that it was unaware of the CHC funding or Mrs C’s death. This added additional confusion but was not the prime cause of the problems.

Agreed action

21. In recognition of the injustice caused to Mr and Mrs B, I recommended the Council (within one month of the date of my final decision):
• waives the outstanding charge on Mrs C’s account; and
• pays Mr and Mrs B £150 for their time and trouble in pursuing these matters.
22. The Council has agreed to my recommendations

Back to top

Final decision

23. I consider this is a proportionate way of putting right the injustice caused to Mr and Mrs B by the Council’s fault and I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman