Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s approach to pursuing Ms Y for payment of a debt owed by the late Mrs Z for her care. Ms Y said this caused her significant stress, upset, time and trouble and the debt was not due. We found the Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complained on behalf of Ms Y. He says the Council:
• Inappropriately pursued Ms Y for her late mother’s care fees.
• Did not provide information about how the alleged debt arose when asked.
• Did not explain why the care costs were not met by NHS funding.
• Used the wrong contact details to send correspondence about the debt.
• Obtained the correct address from information it was not entitled to use for that purpose.
2. Ms Y says the Council’s approach caused her significant stress, upset, time and trouble when she was grieving. The first letter she received was threatening and it has since persisted in chasing payment of the debt without providing any information to prove the debt. It ignored her requests for information. She would like the Council to apologise and either provide the information she requires to prove the debt or cancel the debt.

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)
5. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended). Ms Y has given Mr X authority to complain on her behalf.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from the Complainant and from the Council.
7. I sent both parties a copy of my draft decision for comment and took account of the comments I received in response.

Back to top

What I found

Background

Complaint handling

8. Councils should have clear procedures for dealing with social care complaints. Regulations and guidance say they should investigate a complaint in a way which will resolve it speedily and efficiently. A single stage procedure should be enough. The Council should say in its response to the complaint:
• how it has considered the complaint; and
• what conclusions it has reached about the complaint, including any matters which may need remedial action; and
• whether the responsible body is satisfied it has taken or will take necessary action; and
• details of the complainant’s right to complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

(Local Authority Social Services and National Health Service Complaints (England) Regulations 2009)

9. Regulations do not say how long a complaint investigation should take but expect this will be determined at the start of the procedure. This should usually be in discussion with the complainant. During the investigation, the body must keep the complainant informed of progress ‘as far as reasonably practicable’. If the responsible body has not provided a response after six months (or, after any previously agreed longer period), it must write to the complainant to explain why. (Regs 13 and 14, Local Authority Social Services and National Health Service Complaints (England) Regulations 2009)

Continuing Healthcare

10. NHS Continuing Healthcare (CHC) is a package of ongoing care that is arranged and funded by the NHS where a person has been assessed as having a ‘primary health need’.

Debt validation

11. The Financial Conduct Authority's (FCA) Consumer Credit sourcebook states the following: "A firm must not ignore or disregard a customer's claim that a debt has been settled or is disputed and must not continue to make demands for payment without providing clear justification and/or evidence as to why the customer's claim is not valid." (7.5.3)

What happened

12. Ms Y’s parents, Mr and Mrs Z, lived alone. Mrs Z had difficulties with mobility. In 2015, following a stay in hospital, the Council assessed Mrs Z and arranged home care for her starting towards the end of April. In May, Mrs Z cancelled her Sunday calls and by June, following a period of reablement support, Mr Z cancelled all care.
13. In mid June 2017, Council records show it received a call from Mr and Mrs Z’s son, about Mrs Z who had fallen several times and been readmitted to hospital. He said she was no longer able to get into bed unaided and could not wash properly. The Council assessed Mrs Z and arranged home care twice daily. The OT advised that Ms Y had cleared some items from the house and it was now safer with fewer trip hazards. The OT considered providing a hospital bed if one would fit. Mrs Z decided to have care only once daily; she was discharged towards the end of June and, within four days, cancelled the care altogether. Ms Y contacted the Council as she had concerns about this. She said she would speak to Mr Z and the Council reinstated the care.
14. In August, the Council reviewed the care package and it continued.
15. The Council charged Mrs Z the full cost of the care she received following a financial assessment. The Council sent five bills to Mr Z at their home address covering the period June to October 2017 but received no payment. Mrs Z was admitted to hospital in October. Following her discharge, and from 16 November, she received NHS continuing health care funding. The Council therefore cancelled her care package on 15 November. Sadly, she died later that month. Following her death, the Council offered support to Mr Z which he declined.
16. In late 2019, Mr Z telephoned the Council and advised that Ms Y was executor of Mrs Z’s estate. The Council updated the address to Ms Y’s address but unfortunately, the postcode was wrong. Records do not exist to confirm where the error was introduced but this meant the Council reissued bills and sent reminders to the wrong address.
17. Ms Y received a bill from the Council for £1,129.84 for Mrs Z’s care. This was the total amount outstanding. The letter said: “If you are not acting as an executor of the estate, could you please advise me of the name, address and contact details (phone number and email) of the person or solicitor who is dealing with financial matters of the estate so that I may write to them instead”.
18. In late January 2020, Mr X telephoned the Council and advised he represented Ms Y and they were disputing the charges were due. The Council asked him to put his concerns in writing. Mr X advised me that Ms Y had not yet placed an advert in a local newspaper. This is recommended to avoid debts the executor is not aware of, appearing after the estate has been distributed. There is no obligation to do this, but executors can be found personally liable for debts of which they were not aware if they have not done so.
19. Mr X says the Council did not provide evidence of the debt when asked. He says the debt is therefore not validated. He also says the Council has pursued Ms Y on a personal level for the debt.
20. The Council sent a response to the complaint at stage one in March, and then at stage two in September.

Was there fault which caused injustice?

21. Mrs Z received care arranged by the Council between June and October 2017 and a financial assessment found she must pay the full cost of this care. Neither Mrs Z, nor her husband, Mr Z, dealt with the bills for this care during her lifetime. Ms Y was aware the Council provided care to Mrs Z, indeed she asked it to reinstate the care when Mr Z cancelled it. She also became Mrs Z’s executor following her death and became responsible for paying Mrs Z’s debts from her estate. She may not have been aware there was a cost involved at the time, as she was only occasionally involved with Mrs Z’s affairs. However, the Council provided invoices, though delayed due to the error in her address, and explained why the debt was due. Mr X says the NHS funded Mrs Z’s care, and therefore the debt to the Council was not due, but it only did so from 16 November 2017. The cost of her care before this date is therefore due to the Council. I find no fault in the Council’s position that the debt is valid or in the information it provided to evidence this.
22. I consider the Council provided the necessary information. That Ms Y and Mr X did not understand or agree does not change the situation; on the balance of probability, the debt is due to the Council. I do not consider the Council’s approach to Ms Y about this was on a personal level. While it did not address its correspondence to “the Executor”, it was clear from that it was directed to the executor of Mrs Z’s estate. It also included a request to advise the Council if she was not executor.
23. The error in the address was a small error in the postcode and the Council corrected it as soon as it was advised of the correct postcode. I cannot say this was the Council’s fault. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it had a legitimate interest in using the information it had to communicate with Ms Y and I found no fault here.
24. The Council delayed responding to the complaint. It apologised and explained the impact of COVID-19 had contributed to this. I do not consider this was unreasonable delay in the circumstances and I found no fault here.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold Mr X’s complaints that the Council:
• inappropriately pursued Ms Y for her late mother’s care fees.
• did not provide information about how the alleged debt arose when asked.
• did not explain why the care costs were not met by NHS funding.
• used the wrong contact details to send correspondence about the debt.
• obtained the correct address from information it was not entitled to use for that purpose.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman