Summary: Mr C complains about the way in which the Council informed the family about charges in relation to his (late) father’s care. As a result, he had to spend time and trouble to try and solve the dispute that subsequently arose. We found there were delays by the Council, and it failed to correctly apply its guideline as to the date on which Mr F should start to pay a contribution towards his homecare. The Council has agreed to apologise, wave the fees it asked Mr F to pay, and pay £100 for the time and trouble Mr C had to spend to resolve this.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shalll call Mr C, complains on behalf of his father, whom I shall call Mr F. Mr C complains the Council failed to explain to him, before the date on which it started to charge his father for his homecare (14 May 2018):
• from when the charge for his father would start.
• how much the care agency would cost (so they would know what the maximum charge would be if his father had to pay for the full amount).
2. As such, Mr C says the family was denied the opportunity to make an informed decision whether they wanted to continue with the care agency arranged by the Council, or if they wanted to make their own private arrangements. Mr C says that, as soon as the family were made aware that the period of the Council paying for the care had come to an end on 10 June 2018, they immediately stopped the package.

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 conflict34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information I received from Mr C and the Council. I shared a copy of my draft decision statement with Mr C and the Council and considered any comments I received, before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation and guidance

6. The Care and Support Act Guidance says that:
• Financial information and advice are fundamental to enable people to make well-informed choices about how they pay for their care. It is integral to a person’s consideration of how best to meet care and support needs, immediately or in the future.
• A council should be clear and transparent, so people know what they will be charged. The Council should provide enough information and advice, at the right time, to ensure that a client is able to understand any contributions they may, or will be, asked to make so they can make an informed decision.
• A council should normally complete a financial assessment once it has decided a person’s needs are eligible for council support or involvement, and before creating a personal budget and care and support plan.
7. The Care Act 2014 and its Statutory Guidance say that a Council should complete a financial assessment before arranging care services. It also indicates that, in cases when this is not possible, for instance in an emergency, a council should give the client a reasonable estimate of likely charges before they have to decide what support they want the Council to arrange. Furthermore, the Council is still required to complete the formal financial assessment as quickly as possible after that.

What happened

8. Mr F was in hospital in March 2018. A Council record from 15 March 2018 said that “at present it is unclear if he has rehab potential and so is still being assessed on the ward”.
9. Mr C says the family were advised to take him home but could only do this if the Council would provide support for his father at home. A nurse told him about free reablement support. The Council has said there is no evidence in its records, that a Council officer told Mr C that the first six weeks of the care would be free.
10. Mr C said the Council quickly made him sign a form so his father could go home before the Easter holiday weekend. He added that:
• We believed my father would receive free reablement support first. After his father left the hospital, he was mainly in touch with two Council officers, whom I shall call Council officer one and Council officer two. Mr C says he told them the family would make their own care arrangement once the free reablement package would end. As such, he wanted to know when this would be.
• Officer one told him that officer two would tell him when the Council would stop paying for the free Reablement Home Care support, and therefore from when his father would have to start to pay for his care.
• Officer 2 told him his father would not be charged until the Monday after the financial assessment would be completed (in a way that is true as the council can only send an invoice once it has completed the FA).
11. The Council called Mr F on 26 March 2018, which was before Mr F went home. The record says: “Advised son that we were made aware of discharge. I explained that we can look into setting up a package of care, but it will be means tested”. As such, the Council says Mr C was aware there would be a charge for the support the Council would provide.
12. The Council received a report from the Occupational Therapist on 27 March 2018, which recommended the Council should set up a significant care package of two carers visiting four times a day. The reablement team does not provide support, if a client still needs two carers. Mr C went home two days later.
13. Mr C says he completed the financial assessment forms on 3 April 2018. He told me he knew there would be a charge at some stage, but not from when. However, the records state the Council called Mr C on 3 April 2018. It says:
• Mr C wanted to clarify the care package and the cost of the care package, as he said he was not informed about the care package. He said the social worker who had spoken to him, did not tell him the care package is subject to a financial assessment. He was under the impression the care package was free for 4 to 6 weeks and felt nobody told him about the cost.
• The duty officer explained that the case notes confirm the family was told the service would be means tested. He said he would ask the finance team to call Mr C, because Mr C thought his father had finances above the threshold.
• The officer advised Mr C to complete and return the financial assessment quickly.
14. The duty officer called the finance team, who said Mr F would be charged from 9 April 2018. The duty officer subsequently informed Mr C.
15. The Council says Mr C ticked the box “Full cost offer”, because his father had savings above £23,250. They therefore agreed to pay the full cost of any services.
16. The Council says it received the completed financial assessment form on 4 April 2018. Two days later:
• A social worker visited Mr F. Mr C and other family members were present as well. The record states the social worker said the contribution to the package was subject to the outcome of the financial assessment. Mr F’s daughter said she felt her father was entitled to get free Reablement support. The social worker said he would find out why Mr F did not receive the Reablement package of care.
• After the visit, the social worker asked if, following some improvement in Mr F’s abilities, he should be reconsidered for reablement support. However, there is no reablement support available for clients who still need care support from two carers. The social worker passed on the message to Mr C.
17. It took the Council from 5 April until 9 May 2018, to process Mr F’s financial assessment form. The Council says its guideline at the time was that the Council would only start to charge a person, once it had notified the person by letter of their assessed contribution. This meant it did not invoice / charge the family for the care it provided between 29 March 2018 and 13 May 2018, approximately £3,200. The Council paid for this care. Furthermore, this period is longer than the period of free reablement would have been. It only invoiced the family for care provided between 14 May 2018 and 10 June 2018 (28 days) at a total of £1,974.
18. Mr C told officer one on 15 May 2018 that: once the family would receive confirmation how much his father’s contribution would be, they would look for an alternative care agency that would better suit their flexibility. The contribution was always likely to be full cost as Mr F had capital above the £23,250 threshold.
19. Officer 2 called Mr C on 17 May 2018. The record states that: Explained to Mr C that we have the financial assessment form (…) Client is over the threshold, and he will be liable for full cost, once the financial assessment is complete. At this point, son said he would like to make his own care arrangements”.
20. Mr C received a document on 5 June 2018, stating Mr F would be a full cost payer and that “the assessment is valid from 11 June 2018”. Mr C told the Council on 7 June 2018 to stop the package on 10 June. He said the family did this as soon as it was told that the assessment was complete, and that the family were liable for the full costs.
21. It took until 21 January 2019 before the family received the first invoice. This was a delay of 6 months for which the Council has apologised.
22. Mr C received a complaint response from the Council on 18 March 2019. It said, at the end, that: “you are entitled to request the second stage of the corporate complaint procedure. You can do this by either calling or writing into the Complaints Service. This should be done within 20 working days of the date of this letter”. Mr C says he sent a stage two letter in April 2019 to the Council and chased this in September 2019. He says he did not get a response and therefore felt forced to refer the matter to the Ombudsman.
23. The Council told me that:
• It would like to sincerely apologise to the family for the poor communication and for the delay in the Stage 2 response. It accepts that this situation could have been resolved at a much earlier point with clearer communication.
• Its Complaints Service will work with the relevant Head of Service in reminding relevant social care staff about the requirement and expectation to provide families with clearer and detailed information with respect to care charging and in providing the full amount of relevant financial information when complaints are investigated to ensure opportunities to resolve and clarify are not missed.

Analysis

24. It is clear from the records that the Council told Mr C on 3 and 9 April 2018, that his father was not receiving free reablement support and that he would have to pay a contribution, following the financial assessment.
25. The Council told me that its approach at the time was that a client would only have to pay after it had told the client, in writing, what their charge would be. Furthermore, officer two said the charge would only start from the following Monday. As the Council only told Mr C about the assessed contribution in a letter sent on 5 June 2018, the charge should only have started the following Monday, which was 11 June 2018. As the care package had stopped by then, there should not have been any charge at all. This is confirmed by the document Mr C received, which said “the assessment is valid from 11 June 2018”. Instead, the Council charged Mr F from 14 May 2018; this was against the Council’s guidelines.
26. There was also an unreasonable delay by the Council in sending out the first invoice as well as fault with the way in which it dealt with Mr C’s stage two complaint.

Agreed action

27. I recommended that the Council should, within four weeks of my decision:
• Provide an apology for the faults identified above and pay Mr C £100 for the distress caused to him and the time and trouble he had to spend to pursue this complaint.
• Wave the entire care fees.
• Share the lessons learned with the Council’s financial assessment team(s).
28. The Council has told me it has accepted the recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

29. For reasons explained above, there was fault with the actions of the Council. I am satisfied with the actions the Council will carry out to remedy this and have therefore decided to complete my investigation and close the case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman