Summary: The Council has proposed an adequate resolution to a complaint about invoicing for care fees, and as further investigation would not provide a different outcome, we have discontinued our investigation of this point. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to refer the complainant’s arrears to a debt collection agency.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mr W.
2. Mr W complains about the Council’s invoices for his home care package. He says he has been charged for several visits which did not take place, and also that some of the visits were shorter than reflected in the invoices. Because of this, Mr W has not yet paid any of the invoices.
3. Mr W also complains the Council has commissioned a debt collection agency to pursue the arrears.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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’.
5. 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)
6. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
7. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I reviewed Mr W’s records of the visits he has received, a record provided by the Council showing credits it had made to Mr W’s account, the correspondence between the two parties, and the Council’s response to my enquiries.

Back to top

What I found

9. In October 2018, the Council commissioned a home care package for Mr W, involving three visits each day, seven days per week. The Council assessed Mr W’s finances and decided he should be a full-cost payer.
10. In July 2019, Mr W made a complaint to the Council. He said the care provider had repeatedly recorded that his late afternoon visits were 45 minutes long, when in fact they were only 30 minutes long, and had been charging him accordingly. Mr W reflected the conversations he had had with the care provider and said he considered it was attempting to commit fraud.
11. The Council replied the following day. It explained an agreement had been made in May for a temporary increase in the length of this visit, because extra time was needed to prepare Mr W’s food, but this agreement was quickly withdrawn when an alternative arrangement was devised. However, the Council said this change should have been processed formally, which did not happen. The Council said it would check with the care provider to ensure the records were up to date.
12. The Council also explained some possible reasons for variation in the invoices, and the various quality control processes it had in place. It noted Mr W had also raised discrepancies in earlier invoices, during a period when different care providers were in place, and said it was still investigating these.
13. In January 2020, Mr W raised a second complaint. He complained the Council was pursuing him for his arrears, despite the fact discrepancies in the invoices had not been resolved to his satisfaction. Mr W expressed frustration that all the evidence had submitted about this had not been properly considered, and said he would refer his complaint to the Ombudsman is the matter was not resolved in eight weeks.
14. The Council responded on 23 January. It confirmed it had now completed its investigation, and had identified discrepancies in the invoices for the three different care providers which had been involved in the package. The Council said it had applied the relevant credits to Mr W’s arrears.
15. The Council said it had also raised a safeguarding referral, with regard to the third care provider. It reiterated the quality assurance processes it had in place, and that it would follow up any identified issues where required.
16. The Council said there was now approximately £7600 outstanding on Mr W’s account, and asked him to pay the full amount on receipt of his next invoice.
17. Mr W referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 5 August. He said there were still discrepancies in what he had been invoiced, and complained the Council had now referred the matter to a debt collection agency.
18. Mr W asked the Ombudsman to confirm there had been fault by the Council, to allow him to ask it to withdraw the debt from the collection agency. He requested the Council involve him in a full audit of his invoices, as he has accountancy skills, and asked the Ombudsman to be “severe” with the Council because of what he perceived to be controllership issues. Mr W also asked the Ombudsman to recommend he receive compensation.

Back to top

Analysis

19. There are two aspects to Mr W’s complaint, which I will address in turn.

Invoicing

20. Mr W provided us with a spreadsheet, documenting every care visit he had received since the beginning of his package in October 2018. He noted several visits which had not taken place, for various reasons. Some of these visits Mr W acknowledged he had been credited for by the Council, and others he had not. Mr W’s spreadsheet also highlighted a period where he said he had been charged for a 45-minute late afternoon visit each day, when this should only have been for 30 minutes.
21. The Council also provided us with a spreadsheet, showing the credits it had made to Mr W’s account. These are recorded by week, not visit, and so it is not possible to make a direct comparison with Mr W’s spreadsheet. The Council’s spreadsheet also does not explain the reason for each credit.
22. I therefore wrote to the Council, and asked it to explain which of Mr W’s highlighted discrepancies it had accepted, which it had not accepted, and why.
23. The Council responded to say it was unable to dedicate the resources needed to carry out a review of its records, given the additional pressure its adult social care department was under because of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Council therefore said it was prepared to make a further ex gratia credit of £350 to Mr W’s account, as a way of resolving the complaint, although this did not mean it had accepted it was at fault.
24. The Council also said Mr W had never paid any of the invoices, and that his arrears now stood at over £15,000. It confirmed it had put a stop on recovery action, but would expect Mr W to pay his arrears once the complaint was resolved.
25. The law says a person should approach the Ombudsman within 12 months of becoming aware of the issue they wish to complain about. This is for several reasons, one being that it can be very difficult to investigate and resolve matters which are older.
26. Mr W disputes invoices he has received covering the period October 2018 to July 2019 (according to his spreadsheet), but he did not approach the Ombudsman until August 2020. In this sense, his complaint is late.
27. While we are able to disapply the 12-month time limit, we must be satisfied it is still possible to carry out a robust investigation. In this case, given the difficulties described by the Council, I must accept it is not possible to comprehensively investigate the discrepancies Mr W claims still exist in the invoices.
28. The Council has made credits totalling approximately £315 to Mr W’s account. It says it will now make a further credit of £350, to resolve the complaint, making a total of approximately £665.
29. I cannot say exactly what is the total potential value of the discrepancies Mr W has claimed. However, even if I accept all the claimed discrepancies, there does not appear to be any radical difference between this value, and what the Council has credited or is now offering to credit.
30. Taking this together with the fact I cannot properly investigate the discrepancies in detail, I consider the Council’s offer is an adequate way of resolving the complaint. Further investigation is unlikely to produce a different outcome to Mr W’s complaint. On this basis, I will discontinue my investigation here.
31. Mr W says the Council should involve him a full audit of its records, as he has skills in accountancy. It is for the Council to decide how to undertake audits, and I could not recommend it invite a member of the public to be involved in the process. And, although it is clear there have been some errors in the invoicing here, I do not consider there is any evidence of a widespread problem with the Council’s processes which would warrant a recommendation for service improvements.
32. I have discontinued my investigation of this element of Mr W’s complaint.

Debt collection agency

33. Mr W has also complained the Council has referred the matter to a debt collection agency.
34. Mr W’s care package has been in place for more than two years, but he has not yet paid any of the invoices the Council has sent him. Even accepting his disagreements about the invoices, the amount in dispute is only a small percentage of the overall arrears, which now stand at more than £15,000.
35. For this reason, I cannot criticise the Council for referring the matter to a debt collection agency; in fact, given the scale of the arrears, I would find it remarkable if it had not done this yet. There is no reason to find fault here.
36. Mr W has also complained to us the debt collection agents are “not very nice people”. As the agents are acting on the Council’s behalf, this is a matter which is potentially eligible for investigation by the Ombudsman. However, Mr W has not yet raised this a complaint with the Council, which he would need to do first before the Ombudsman could accept it.
37. I find no fault in this element of Mr W’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman