Summary: Mr B complained about the way the Council tried to collect outstanding residential care charges following the death of his father (Mr C) in January 2019. We found the Council delayed in providing accurate and clear information about the outstanding charges. The Council has agreed to pay Mr B £300 which can be offset against the outstanding charges.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained that Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) failed to offer a reasoned explanation for the invoices it sent after Mr B’s father (Mr C) died in January 2019. He also says staff were rude to him on the telephone when he tried to sort out the issue. Mr B has been caused significant distress by these events and does not understand why this amount is still outstanding.

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 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. Mr B’s father, Mr C was resident in a care home until he died on 25 January 2019. Prior to this Mr B had been paying the care home charges on receipt of invoices approximately every four weeks. By 17 December 2018 Mr B had paid the charges up to and including 25 November 2018.
6. On 10 January 2019 the Council sent another invoice for four weeks’ charges (£2036) from 26 November to 23 December 2018 and on 30 January 2019 a smaller invoice for £121 for 24 December 2018 to 20 January 2019 (following a change from nursing care to residential care). Mr B paid these on 22 February 2019.
7. On 21 February 2019 the Council sent an invoice for outstanding charges of £170 from 2014 for non-residential care. Mr B rang the Council the following day to complain. He was upset at the length of time it had taken to send the invoice and the timing, so soon after his father’s death. He said he had visited the Council two days after Mr C’s death to report it and believed he had completed the ‘Tell it Once’ service which should have notified all relevant departments. The Council said it was not aware Mr C had died and it had six years to collect outstanding charges.
8. The Council responded on 8 March 2019. It apologised for not knowing that Mr C had died and confirmed the systems had now been updated. It said prior to this action the system had generated an invoice on 27 February 2019 for another four weeks’ charges up to 17 February 2019. It said it had placed the invoice on hold while it corrected the account.
9. In respect of the invoice for charges from 2014 it acknowledged the distress of sending this so close to Mr C’s death but confirmed it was for Support at Home services from 2014. It said the Council had not had the resources to check individual accounts for outstanding monies until now, but it had carried out a review at the end of 2018. It apologised for the distress, upset and inconvenience but said the amount was payable.
10. Mr B rang the Council on 13 March 2019 to express his dissatisfaction with the response. He said the money should be written off and he would seek legal advice.
11. On 2 May 2019 the Council sent Mr B a final invoice covering the period from 24 December 2018 to 17 March 2019 saying £203.71 was outstanding. But it also wrote to him on 8 May 2019 saying that a total of £2342.51 was outstanding including the £170 from 2014. It said the invoices were a claim against Mr C’s estate and the Council would put a hold on them until 2 August 2019 to allow time to deal with the matter. Mr B paid the smaller amount of £203.71 but not the remainder of £1968 (care charges up to 24 January 2019) or the £170 non-residential care charges from 2014).
12. Mr B did not pay the money. The Council did not chase the matter until February 2020. On receipt of the letter Mr B rang the Council to complain. The Council said the balance owing for residential care charges up to 24 January 2019 was £1968 and the old non-residential care charges from 2014 were £170.80 (total of £2138.80). Mr B rang the Council again. Mr B said staff were rude to him. The Council recorded in the notes that Mr B was angry and rude and ended the call prematurely. Mr B rang again on 24 February 2020. The Council said it could no longer discuss this matter over the telephone.
13. The Council confirmed the outstanding balance (£2138.80) by letter on 25 February 2020. Mr B then instructed a solicitor who wrote to the Council on 2 March 2020 disputing the invoice. The Council treated this as a complaint and responded on 1 April 2020.
14. It said it had reviewed the whole case and noted a number of system errors which meant the final four invoices sent to Mr B were incorrect. It re-raised a final and correct invoice for the whole amount of £4328.86 for charges from 26 November 2018 to 24 January 2019. It pointed out that the total amount charged on the previous invoices was the same (£4328.86) but the dates and adjustments had been incorrect. It noted that Mr B had already paid £2360.86 (£2036 and £121.15 on 25 February 2019 and £203.71 in July 2019) towards this amount, leaving an outstanding balance of £1968 which was correct and due.
15. In respect of the telephone calls it gave an account of the contact from its own call logs and the staff members involved and did not consider they had behaved unprofessionally.
16. Mr B’s solicitor responded on 20 April 2020 saying they continued to dispute the charges as the Council had not explained how the dates on the original invoices were wrong. The Council put the invoice on hold and escalated the complaint to a stage two review.
17. It responded further on 14 May 2020. It had reviewed the logs of the telephone calls but did not find any evidence of unprofessional conduct. In respect of the invoices, it accepted that the original billing and subsequent explanation of the adjustments could have been clearer but agreed that the amount was correct (it was the dates that were not) and remained payable.
18. Mr B’s solicitor then complained to us.

Analysis

Residential care charges

19. On 22 February 2019 Mr B had paid the regular invoice for four weeks’ charges between 26 November 2018 and 23 December 2018 plus an additional amount of £121.19 towards the charges from 24 December 2018 to 24 January 2019 (the date of Mr C’s death). So, there were charges outstanding for these last four weeks, but he had not received a correct invoice.
20. The Council sent a regular invoice for four week’s charges on 27 February 2019. On 8 March 2019, once the Council was aware of Mr C’s death, it put a hold on this invoice and said it would send a final bill once it had corrected the account. The Council did not send any more invoices until 8 May 2019 when it sent Mr B a ‘final’ invoice for £203.71 but also said in the covering letter that £1968 was still outstanding. I assume this referred to the remainder of the charges from 24 December 2019 to 24 January 2019. The information the Council sent at this point was incomplete and very confusing: the invoice dated 2 May 2019 did not match the information provided in the covering letter. This was fault which caused Mr B considerable confusion. He paid the amount demanded on the invoice and believed this was the final charge.
21. I accept the Council was giving Mr B time to pay the outstanding £1968 but the delay in chasing this up until February 2020 was fault which caused Mr B additional confusion and frustration. The Council did not send Mr B a correct final invoice until 1 April 2020 over a year after he had raised queries about the charges. This was fault which exacerbated the confusion and contributed to Mr B’s continued belief that the charges are wrong.
22. I note Mr B continues to dispute whether the final bill of £1968 is payable. From the information provided, the charges appear to be correct for the period from 26 November 2018 until 24 January 2019 minus the payments made by Mr B in February and July 2019 (see paragraph 14 above). So I consider £1968 is still outstanding.

Non-residential care charges

23. In February 2019 the Council sent an unrelated invoice for £170.80 of non-residential care charges from July 2014. This was fault. The Council should have noticed the error at an earlier point and not waited over four years before requesting the money. I accept that legally it can recover charges for up to six years, but from an administrative point of view, it should have sent a proper explanation with evidence as to why these charges were outstanding and why they had not been picked up sooner. Although the Council was unaware at this point of Mr C’s death, the timing was most unfortunate and caused significant distress to Mr B.
24. The Council continued to demand payment of these charges in its complaint response of March 2019 and it letter of 8 May 2019. They were not included in the final invoice sent on 1 April 2020.

Telephone calls

25. I accept Mr B was very distressed during the telephone calls in February and March 2019, partly due to the insensitive timing of the invoices and the confusing information provided. But the Council has provided detailed notes of the calls and I cannot conclude that the officers were unprofessional.

Agreed action

26. In recognition of the injustice caused to Mr B, I asked the Council (within one month of my final decision) to:
• confirm the £170.80 from 2014 has been written off; and
• pay Mr B an additional £300.
27. The Council has agreed to my recommendation: it has confirmed that £170.80 has been cancelled and asked if the £300 payment can be offset against the outstanding £1968. I have agreed to this request.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I consider this is a proportionate way of putting right the injustice caused to Mr B and I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman