Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council billed her late father for care he received at home. We should not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to add to the Council’s investigation or recommend any different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained that the Council failed to bill her late father correctly for the care he received at home and failed to handle her complaints about this properly. She says this caused her unnecessary stress.

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’. 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 we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or

• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Miss X sent us and the Council’s response to our initial enquiries about the complaint.
4. I gave Ms X an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

5. Ms X’s father, Mr Y, was discharged from hospital in early 2019. The Council arranged for him to have support from carers visiting him at home four times a day, each visit to be 30 minutes. This continued until Mr Y died in 2020.
6. The Council invoiced Mr Y for the cost of the support. By July 2019 Mr Y had made no payments towards his care.
7. In July 2019 Ms X complained to the Council that it was not charging correctly. She had no complaints about the standard of care Mr Y was receiving. But she said the carers often stayed at the house for less than 15 minutes and the Council was still charging for visits lasting 30 minutes.
8. The Council put the account on hold and started to investigate Miss X’s complaint.
9. In January 2020 the Council had still not responded to the complaint but sent an invoice requiring payment of £19,000. Miss X contacted the Council about the invoice and the progress of her complaint. She said the same invoicing problem continued. The Council apologised for sending an invoice in error when the complaint was meant to be on hold. It said it would investigate the invoices after July 2019 in the same detailed way as for the earlier ones. It said it looked as if overcharging had occurred in both periods. The Council sent Ms X a cheque for £200 to acknowledge the inconvenience to her of pursuing the Council’s invoicing errors.
10. In April 2020 the Council responded to the first complaint about the period January to July 2019. The Council apologised for its delay responding. The Council found the home care visits were often shorter than 30 minutes. At the end of July 2019 the Council had charged Mr Y £12,191.33. It calculated part of that was an overcharge of ££3,055.18. It adjusted the bill accordingly.
11. In June 2020 the Council responded to the second complaint. The Council apologised for its delay in responding. It found similar errors and said since
    July 2019 it had overcharged Mr Y by £1,298.70. The Council adjusted the bill again. It also confirmed future bills should be correct because of the way the account was then being monitored.
12. After Mr Y died Ms X queried the final bill payable. The Council considered her queries and made a small adjustment to reach an agreed amount of £16,515.26.

Assessment

13. The Council addressed Ms X’s complaints in detail, accepted it made errors and made appropriate adjustments to the overall bill. The final amount of the bill has now been agreed.
14. The Council did delay dealing with the complaints and has apologised for that. It has also paid Ms X £200 to acknowledge the inconvenience to her of having to follow up these issues over a long period.
15. Any investigation by us is unlikely to add to the Council’s already detailed investigation or recommend any different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to add to the Council’s investigation or recommend any different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman