Summary: There was no evidence of fault by the Council when it calculated no refund was due on charges for cancelled care visits in accordance with its policy. There was fault by the Council, in that there was three months delay responding to a returned financial assessment form. An apology remedies the inconvenience caused to the service user.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs B, is represented by Mr X. Mrs B complains the Council has charged for her late husband’s care visits which they cancelled in advance with the provider.
2. Mrs B says that she thinks she has paid over 900 pounds for visits that they cancelled and would like the money refunded.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I read the papers put in by Mr X and discussed the complaint with him.
6. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
7. Mr X 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

8. Mrs B’s husband needed care at home. The care and support plan from the Council in February 2019 said he was in need of two care calls a day, one in the morning and one in the evening.
9. Carers started in March 2019. The Council sent Mr and Mrs B the forms to complete a financial assessment and the Council calculated in April 2019 that they needed to contribute 118 pounds a week towards the care.
10. Mr X explained that Mr and Mrs B only received 104 out of 184 care visits. Mr X explains they cancelled the care visits in advance, because Mr B was in hospital or on holiday. Sadly, Mr B died in August 2019.
11. Mrs B asked the Council for a refund for the visits which they cancelled. In a letter the Council said the care package for 17.5 hours a week care cost the Council 279 pounds per week. Mr B contributed 118 pounds or 42% of the cost. The Council said ‘any cancelled calls would only result in a deduction in contributions if the costs of care provided falls below the amount you are required to contribute’.
12. The Council has said that Mr and Mrs B were informed about care charges in February 2019 and were given a copy of the leaflet called the non-residential adult care contributions policy. This says, on page 8, that ‘if you are only making a contribution to the cost of your care, a cancellation of care is unlikely to result in a refund. More details are found in the full policy. The Council has said it is willing to offer a repayment plan to Mrs B.
13. I have looked at all the information and I can see no evidence of fault by the Council on the refund of charges. The Council has acted in accordance with its policy, which is not to refund unless the contributions made by the service user were greater than the total cost of the care. The Council gave Mr and Mrs B a copy of this policy.
14. I can see the financial assessment took some time to complete. Mrs B returned the form in April 2019 but the Council did not write to her until July 2019 to say the form was incomplete and it needed more evidence. It is clear from the file notes that Mrs B struggled to fill in the form. I do find there was fault by the Council on this point, as there was three months delay before it looked at Mrs B’s financial assessment form and asked for further information.
15. I now have to consider if the three month delay caused injustice to Mrs B. While I understand it was a difficult time, I do not consider the delay altered the outcome of the financial assessment or would have meant that Mrs B would have paid less money. I do consider the Council should apologise for the delay in processing the form to remedy any injustice from the inconvenience caused to Mrs B. The Council has said that if all the information had been provided with the form, it would have been processed quicker. While this may be the case, it does seem clear from the Council’s file notes that Mrs B was genuinely struggling to fill in the form and was at the time caring for her husband.

Back to top

Agreed Action

16. That the Council should apologise to Mrs B for the delay in responding to her financial assessment forms within one month of the date of the decision on this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have completed my investigation of this complaint. This complaint is upheld, as I have found evidence of delay which I consider is remedied by the Council’s apology.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman