Summary: Mr X complained that Support Carers Limited pursued him for care fees he did not owe. He also complains the Provider blocked his calls when he called to discuss the fees. We have found no evidence of fault by the Provider.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that Support Carers Limited (“the Provider”) pursued him for care fees he did not owe. He also complains the Provider blocked his calls when he called to discuss the fees.
2. Mr X says this has caused him avoidable distress and wants the Provider to amend the invoices.

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. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
5. If we are satisfied with a Care provider’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

6. I considered the information provided by Mr X about this complaint and spoke to him on the telephone. I made written enquiries of the Provider and took account of all the information it provided in response.
7. I provided Mr X and the Provider with a copy of my draft decision and invited their comments before reaching a final decision

Back to top

What I found

8. On 13 February 2019, the Provider met with Mr X to discuss his care needs. Mr X required care of his lower legs and support with removing compression stockings and applying cream.
9. It was agreed the Provider would provide Mr X with three visits each fortnight. This comprised of a two thirty-minute call in the first week followed by one thirty-minute call the second week.
10. The care was privately arranged between the provider and Mr X. Mr X confirmed there was no written contract in place as he did not want to sign any paperwork. Mr X also refused to keep any paperwork or documents in his home and therefore no care log records are available. The Provider maintained an electronic record of all visits made to Mr X.
11. Mr X says he had a verbal agreement with the Provider that he would be charged £10 per visit. The Provider disagrees and says it provided Mr X with a copy of a cost sheet which he refused to keep. The cost sheet shows a thirty-minute call is £10.96 and a forty-five-minute call is £17.88.
12. The focus of this investigation is an outstanding payment of £236.91 which Mr X disputes. The Provider issued three invoices to Mr X as follows. The first invoice is for the period 21 June 2019 to 20 July 2019 for six visits at a total cost of £65.76. This invoice also included £23.44 outstanding from a previous invoice. The second invoice is for the period 21 July 2019 to 20 August 2019 for seven visits at a total cost of £76.72. The third invoice is for the period 21 August 2019 to 20 September 2019 for six visits at a total cost of £70.99.
13. The Provider’s records show it discussed the fees and charges with Mr X in February 2019 and it is reported Mr X said he could not afford to pay £10.96 per visit and said he would pay £10.00 per visit instead. On 7 May 2019 the records refer to ongoing issues with Mr X not paying his invoices in full.
14. On 27 August 2019 Mr X contacted the Provider and asked to cancel his afternoon visit. The Provider said that it required 24 hours’ notice and therefore Mr X would still be charged.
15. On 19 September 2019 it is recorded that Mr X was still refusing to pay his invoices and was disputing the amount being charged. The manager of the service met with Mr X twice in October 2019 to discuss the outstanding charges.
16. Mr X says he attempted to resolve the issues with the Provider, but his calls were blocked. In response to my enquires the Provider said staff were subjected to unreasonable behaviour from Mr X and because of this staff were sent in pairs at no extra cost to Mr X. The manager of the service visited Mr X and advised him that if he continued to be unreasonable towards staff then his care would be terminated. The Provider confirmed it blocked calls from Mr X due to an excessive number of calls received and lengthy duration of each call. The Provider said when calls were answered staff were subjected to abusive demands and threats.

Back to top

Analysis

17. Mr X was clearly reluctant to sign a contract or keep any paperwork in his home. Mr X says he had a verbal agreement with the Provider that he would be charged £10.00 per visit. The Provider disagrees and says that it provided Mr X with a copy of its cost sheet detailing its fees which Mr X refused to keep.
18. In the absence of a written contract, it is difficult to determine the hourly rate that was agreed. I do not find the provider at fault for not having a written contract as Mr X confirmed that he refused to sign one. I cannot find evidence to support Mr X’s claims of a verbal agreement as I was not present when the conversations occurred and there is no evidence the Provider agreed to a charge of £10.00 per visit. On balance I find Mr X was aware of the fees as he was provided with a copy of the cost sheet and the invoices clearly set out what he needed to pay. It is Mr X’s view that he should pay £10.00 and not £10.96 per thirty-minute visit. However, in the absence of a contract, I do not find the Provider at fault here.
19. Mr X refused to have care logs in his home and therefore staff were not able to record the visits. I have cross referenced the Provider’s electronic record of visits with the outstanding invoices and found no fault in the way they have been calculated and issued to Mr X.
20. The Provider said that it met with Mr X to discuss unreasonable behaviour shown towards its staff. The Provider said it blocked calls from Mr X due to the frequency of calls, lengthy duration of each call and when calls were answered, staff were subjected to abusive demands and threats. It is not for the Ombudsman to reach a view on whether the incidents with its staff occurred as the Provider says they did, whether Mr X’s conduct amounted to unreasonable behaviour or whose version of events should be preferred. We only have to be satisfied that the Provider had regards to all the evidence available before making its decision, took all relevant matters into account a reached a permissible decision. I am satisfied that when the Provider took its decision to block Mr X’s call it considered the evidence available to reach its decision. This is a decision it is entitled to make.
21. Mr X clearly voiced his unhappiness with the care fees and invoices on numerous occasions. The Provider responded by repeating information it had given him previously. However, I find the Provider failed to respond to the issues as a formal complaint or follow its complaint process. This is fault but did not cause Mr X to suffer an injustice. This is because it is unlikely the complaint process would have led to a different outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I do not uphold Mr X’s complaint about incorrect care fees and invoices issued by the Provider. I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman