Summary: Mrs B complained a Care Provider (Voyage Care) commissioned by the Council unreasonably charged for travel expenses incurred by her daughter, a resident at one of its residential care homes. We upheld the complaint, identifying flaws in the Care Provider’s policy and the Council’s response when alerted to it. This caused Mrs B unnecessary distress and put her to unnecessary time and trouble. The Council accepts these findings and at the end of this statement, I set out the action it has agreed to take to remedy Mrs B’s injustice. It has also agreed to learn lessons from the complaint and consider others who may be similarly affected.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant ‘Mrs B’. She complains on behalf of her daughter, ‘Ms C’, for whom she acts as appointee. The Council has commissioned Voyage Care (‘the Care Provider’) to provide residential care for Ms C. Mrs B complains that since June 2019 the Care Provider has asked Ms C to contribute an unreasonable amount each week towards the running costs of a vehicle used by the care home residents.
2. At the time Mrs B complained to us, there were over £3000 in unpaid charges invoiced by the Care Provider for Ms C’s use of the vehicle. It had threatened to use legal action to recover this money. Mrs B says this caused her distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
4. We normally name care homes and other providers in our decision statements. We will only not do so if we think someone could be identified from the name of the care home or care provider. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34H(8), as amended)
5. 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)
6. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)
7. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Care Quality Commission (CQC), we will share this decision with CQC. We will do this in advance of any publication on our website.
8. 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

9. Before issuing this decision statement I considered the following:

• Mrs B’s written complaint to the Ombudsman and any information she provided in support of that; for example, in emails or telephone conversations with this office;
• correspondence between Mrs B and the Council about the issues covered by the complaint which preceded our decision to investigate;
• further information provided by the Council in response to our enquiries;
• comments made by Mrs B, the Council and Care Provider in response to two draft decision statements where I set out my thinking on the complaint; this included consideration of further information provided by the Care Provider both in writing and at an online meeting with representatives from the company;
• any relevant law or government guidance as referred to in the text below; as well as published guidance by this office.

10. Under an information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Care Quality Commission (CQC), we will share this decision with CQC.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

11. The Care Act 2014, associated Regulations and statutory guidance set out how councils assess care needs; when and how they should meet those needs, and when someone can be asked to contribute to the cost of their care. Where local authorities have determined that a person has eligible care needs, they must meet those needs. One way a council can do this is by contracting with a third party, such as a residential care home provider, to meet those needs. The person’s needs should be detailed in a care and support plan explaining how the Care Provider will meet those needs.
12. The Care Act allows councils to make charges for care and support services they provide or arrange. Annex C of the care and support statutory guidance provides advice to councils on how they should conduct financial assessments to decide what someone should contribute. It says that when assessing what someone should pay towards their care the council should always disregard any mobility allowance a person receives paid as part of social security benefits (Disability Living Allowance or a Personal Independence Payment – PIP).
13. The CQC regulates care home providers in line with the law and regulations. Relevant to this complaint I note Regulation 19 of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 which covers fees. The CQC says the “intention of this regulation is to make sure providers give timely and accurate information about the cost of their care and treatment to people who use services”.
14. The Regulation says that “where a service user will be responsible for paying the costs of their care or treatment (either in full or partially), the registered person must provide a statement to the service user, or to a person acting on the service user’s behalf—
1. specifying the terms and conditions in respect of the services to be provided to the service user, including as to the amount and method of payment of fees; and
2. including, where applicable, the form of contract for the provision of services by the service provider.”
15. In November 2018 the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) issued guidance to UK care home providers on consumer law (amended in December 2021). We consider it provides a useful benchmark for good administrative practice when it comes to how providers should set out their terms and conditions to residents. The CMA guidance says this should include giving information to residents about what additional services may need to be paid for separately, not included within the cost for care.

The key facts

16. Ms C is an adult with learning disabilities who has lived at the residential home operated by the Care Provider since 2017. The care placement was arranged by the Council. It has always paid for the placement.
17. I have reviewed some of Ms C’s care records and note she had a care needs assessment in December 2019. I have assumed what this assessment found would be consistent with earlier assessments of her need. This identified Ms C had an assessed need to maintain her relationship with Mrs B. I understand this has involved Mrs B visiting Ms C at the care home and Ms C staying with Mrs B at weekends and bank holidays. The care plan included as part of the assessment paperwork said that the Care Provider’s staff would “take [Ms C] to [Mrs B] on a Saturday”. Mrs B says in practice, the Care Provider would also collect Ms C from her home on a Sunday.
18. The needs assessment also identified Ms C had a need to access the community. Her care plan said the Care Provider’s staff would “support [Ms C] to access the community and engage in activities she enjoys such as [a named activity] and going shopping”.
19. A review of Ms C’s care plan in April 2021 did not indicate any change in Ms C’s level of needs. It said the Care Provider should help “prepare” Ms C for weekend stays with Mrs B and support her “with a good activity schedule with a range of activities”.
20. Since she moved into the placement the Council has assessed that Ms C should contribute a weekly amount towards her care. Mrs B is Ms C’s appointee for benefits and arranges for her payments towards her care. Ms C receives a PIP including a payment for mobility which Mrs B administers. The Council ignores this in assessing what Ms C should contribute towards her care.
21. Neither the Council nor the Care Provider has a signed contract confirming the terms on which the Care Provider agreed to meet Ms C’s care needs. However, there is an unsigned document which identified the Council would pay, at that outset, £2160 a week for “all costs to cover the service user’s placement”. This included an amount of £1500 to cover the Care Provider’s core costs; with the remainder to reflect hours of 1:1 or 2:1 care for Ms C.
22. During discussion around Ms C’s placement the Council asked the Care Provider to complete a breakdown of the costs of her care. This included asking the Care Provider what it would cost to meet Ms C’s ‘travel and transport’ needs. The Care Provider said this would be around £20 a week. In total, the Care Provider said it would cost around £2400 to meet Ms C’s care (so in excess of the £2160 payment agreed by the Council).
23. The contract contained clauses allowing the Care Provider to request an increase in the fees charged for care and for resolving any dispute arising from any disagreement on this matter. The Care Provider says it asked for a fee increase when Ms C left full time education (circa July 2019) and it has provided an email chain from February 2020 when such a request was made. It also made a further request for an increase in care charges in October 2021 and sent a revised breakdown of the costs it says it incurs to meet Ms C’s needs. This includes an amount of around £17 a week to meet transport costs and assumes a client contribution of around £25 a week to meet the same.
24. The Care Provider did not provide Mrs B with any terms and conditions for Ms C’s residency with them.
25. The Care Provider keeps a car for the use of residents at the residential care home. In March 2019 it wrote to users of the service (or their representatives) to say it was introducing a policy that they should contribute towards the running costs of the car. It said Ms C should contribute £159 a month towards the use of the car, equivalent to 60% of the PIP mobility payment she received. It said it based the charge on an estimated usage of one to three journeys a week. The Care Provider said the charge would cover “the lease cost of the vehicle, fuel costs, maintenance and servicing, general wear and tear”. The Council says it was not consulted and knew nothing of the action by the Care Provider when it introduced the charge.
26. In April 2019 Mrs B wrote to the Care Provider querying its policy. She said that Ms C came home to her at weekends and said she understood that she could retain Ms C’s mobility component to meet the costs she incurred for those stays. Mrs B says this also takes account that the Care Provider receives the care component paid as part of Ms C’s PIP. Mrs B also queried how often Ms C left the care home other than to visit at weekends (a round journey of around three miles). She said “a fixed monthly amount would seem inappropriate”.
27. The Care Provider wrote to Mrs B again setting out its reasons for introducing the policy. But Mrs B remained unhappy and so, after the Care Provider introduced the policy, she raised the matter with Ms C’s social worker. The Council says that in June 2019 its social worker asked for more information about the policy from the Care Provider. Mrs B has provided email exchanges from around November 2019 where Ms C’s social worker advised her she did not need “to address” any invoices at that time as the Council was in discussion with the Care Provider about the policy.
28. The Council recognises not having a full audit trail of discussions around this time and the social worker who liaised with Mrs B no longer works for it. However, it has located an email sent by the Care Provider in January 2020 where it implied another local authority had challenged its practice. It said that authority “had requested a breakdown on each service [user] regarding travel recovery costs”. It said this was “still being worked on [..] so we should provide the same information to Medway before making any charges”. Neither the Council nor Care Provider has provided me details of any further communications about this matter until Mrs B made a complaint in early 2021.
29. Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic the Care Provider reduced the monthly sum being invoiced for Ms C’s use of the car to £111 a month.
30. During 2021 Ms C needed to make a round-trip of around 100 miles for a specific dental appointment at a hospital. The Care Provider asked Mrs B to pay for a taxi for this at a cost of around £180. In comments the Care Provider has queried the need for Ms C to make this journey as a local community dentist had questioned Ms C’s need for the procedure. The Care Provider also gained explicit consent from the Council that it was reasonable for it to ask Mrs B to pay for the taxi. Mrs B disputes the Care Provider questioning Ms C’s need for the procedure. She has explained it was on the advice of a dentist and the reasons they gave for that.
31. In July 2021 the Care Provider wrote to Mrs B saying she owed over £3000 for Ms C’s outstanding charges. It said she must either agree to make payments for use of the car under its policy or arrange taxis for all Ms C’s social and recreational activities. In September 2021, a legal officer for the Provider sent Ms C a “letter before action”. The Care Provider said it would commence court proceedings unless Mrs B made immediate payment either in full or as part of an agreed payment plan. The Care Provider says it only threatened such action given how long the debt had accumulated and how long it had sought to reach agreement with Mrs B on paying the charge.

The Council’s investigation of the complaint

32. I note that after it received Mrs B’s complaint the Council exchanged various emails with the Care Provider. This included asking the Provider how it distinguished between journeys taken by users of services for matters covered in their care plan and “non-essential travel”. It also interpreted the contract documents as showing that it paid the Care Provider around £20 a week for transport as part of Ms C’s cost of care. It asked the Care Provider how it accounted for this.
33. The Care Provider did not answer either question directly. Nor did it, at that time, challenge the view that it was receiving £20 a week from the Council for Ms C’s transport costs. Instead, it defended its policy in general terms. It said the Council did not pay enough in travel costs forming part of the care it provided to users, that it could run a car on that money alone.
34. The Council also asked the Provider why it expected Ms C to pay for a taxi for the medical appointment that was around 50 miles from the care home. The Provider said it felt it would be unfair to other care home residents if Ms C used the car for her appointment, meaning others would not have access to it for up to the ‘whole day’. The Provider also pointed out its position had been agreed by two Council officers, something the Council acknowledged. In further comments made during this investigation the Council said it accepted the Provider’s position as the appointment was a “significant distance” and so untypical. The Council considered Ms C could reasonably meet the cost from her PIP mobility payment.
35. During its correspondence with the Council the Care Provider also suggested on several occasions that Mrs B may not be managing Ms C’s finances appropriately. Part of its concern was that Mrs B was not passing on any of the PIP mobility funding to meet Ms C’s travel expenses. The Council advised the Care Provider to make a safeguarding referral so it could consider the allegation. The Provider did this in September 2021 and the Council’s safeguarding team decided the allegation did not meet the threshold for investigation. As there was “no evidence to demonstrate that Mrs B was misusing her daughter’s money” given the financial assessment carried out by the Council. The Council notes “the matter was also reported to the police who investigated and said that they could not see any evidence of a crime being committed”. Mrs B says these allegations from the Care Provider have caused her distress.
36. I note the Council’s emails also identified that Mrs B had not entered any contract or terms and conditions with the Care Provider on Ms C’s behalf to pay the charge towards the car. It said to the Provider that it did not consider it would be able to enforce any debt against Mrs B. The Provider argued that by putting its intent to charge in writing in March 2019 it had provided sufficient notice to Mrs B. It said she had not disputed the charge at the time, although it did also detail some of the dissatisfaction Mrs B had expressed at the introduction of the charge and its communications with her about this.
37. The Council did not ask the Care Provider for details of Ms C’s use of the car. The Provider commented that it had given Mrs B ‘relevant information’ demonstrating Ms C’s use; something she disputes. The Council has said during this investigation that “it cannot comment” on how often Ms C uses the car.
38. I also noted a document on the file headed “provider to pay for/purchase” which goes on to list expenses related to the care home environment/personal needs; activities and a section on “fares and fees”. This document is not found in the contractual documents I referred to above and nor is there any heading to show if it is the document of the Council or Care Provider. I have assumed however the Care Provider is aware of it and this has not been disputed. The document states the ‘fares and fees’ include:

• “taxi fare to essential appointments;
• taxi fare to day activities;
• petrol for staff cars instead of taxi fares;
• parking costs – depending on the activity;
• petrol for mobility vehicles – petrol to be paid for by provider if used for day activities and essential appointments.”

39. In its reply to Mrs B’s complaint the Council:

• restated the Provider’s rationale for introducing the charge; it said the charge was “optional”;
• said it contributed around £20 a week to the Provider for ‘travel and transport’ to cover “medical appointments and day activities as part of the care plan”; it said travel costs “beyond this” had to be funded by the individual or their family;
• said that they thought it was fair that users of services contribute if the charges incurred by the Care Provider for transport exceeded the £20 a week contribution; it said the Provider should be able to evidence this was the case although it had not “scrutinised in detail” the amount being charged;
• said it had no record that it had ever advised Mrs B not to pay the fee charged by the Care Provider;
• said it considered it was fair Ms C pay for the cost of the taxi to the medical appointment 50 miles away.

Further information

40. During this investigation I asked for selected records from the Care Provider as to Ms C’s use of the vehicle and was provided with logs showing the following usage:

• November 2019 – around 150 miles total although I noted discrepancies in some figures. For example, the return journey to Mrs B’s home was sometimes recorded as seven or ten miles.
• January 2020 – around 100 miles.
• May 2020 – a single 66mile round trip.
• October 2020 – a single 17mile round trip.
• January 2021 – no journeys.
• May 2021 – around 800 miles. Five journeys of around 100 miles or more are recorded as “drive outs” with no reference to their destination or purpose.

41. The Care Provider also told me the total annual running costs for the car used by the care home. I do not know what contributions the Care Provider asks for, or receives, from the other residents in Ms C’s care home. But if all contributed what it initially asked Mrs B to pay (pre pandemic) then the sum received would exceed this figure. If paying the lower amount, then the Care Provider would receive less than the figure quoted. But this would not account for any sum paid by the Council towards travel costs.

My findings

42. I consider the first issue which must be addressed is whether there can be any basis for the Provider making a charge for Ms C’s use of the car maintained by the care home or other transport costs.
43. I agree with the Council that it would be reasonable for the Provider to charge for use of the vehicle in certain circumstances.

• First, that such charges are for use of the car for matters which do not form part of Ms C’s assessed care needs for which the Council pays.
• Second, that such charges are for use of the car for matters which the Provider has not otherwise committed to meet from the cost for care agreed with the Council.
• Third, that such charges have been clearly and transparently communicated in line with expectations set out in CQC Regulation 19 and the CMA guidance.
• Fourth, that such charges have been incurred.

44. I have considered each of these tests in turn against the facts of this case. On the first point I find there is an expectation the Provider meet certain travel costs. While there is no signed contract between the Care Provider and Council, the Care Provider has provided services for Ms C for several years on the basis of the unsigned agreement. This says it will meet “all costs to cover the service user’s placement”. The care planning documents (especially the April 2021 review) could be clearer in specifying exactly what travel and transport the Council has assessed Ms C as needing as part of her overall package of care. But as a minimum I find the Council has identified the following as forming part of Ms C’s needs:

• her stays with Mrs B;
• that she should access the community regularly including attending one specified named activity and shopping.

45. I note that in its investigation of the complaint the Council reiterated this was the underlying position. That it expected the Care Provider to fund “activities as part of the care plan”.
46. The records of how Ms C has used the car are not particularly detailed. However, I find the Care Provider has expected her to fund all journeys she has made to Mrs B’s home and all trips to the community. It flows from what I have said above that there is fault in the Care Provider doing this. As I consider on balance many of these trips will have been to meet needs identified in Ms C’s care plan. Therefore, the Provider simply has no right to charge Ms C separately for them. If the money it receives from the Council is not enough to meet those needs then that is something it should take up with the Council in accord with its contract with it which contains clauses to seek an increase in the cost of care. They are not costs which it can pass on to Ms C.
47. On the second point, I find the Council has also made it clear it expects the money it pays to meet Ms C’s needs sufficient to meet the cost of travelling to and from medical appointments. It has put this in writing to Mrs B and provided the list of items it expects the Care Provider to meet which includes journeys to medical appointments including by taxi. Arguably this goes beyond what is specifically written in Ms C’s care planning documents, but the Care Provider has not challenged the Council’s position on this point.
48. Consideration of this point only arises when I look at the 100 mile trip for a specific medical appointment. I accept the Provider did not want to use the car it maintains because it would be out of use for other residents on the day in question. So, it was reasonable to expect Ms C use a taxi for the trip instead. I also note the Provider obtained advice from the Council which agreed it could pass on the cost to Ms C.
49. However, I cannot endorse the Provider or the Council’s position. Because as I pointed out above, the agreement the Council has with the Care Provider is that it meet taxi expenses incurred when users of services have medical appointments. There is no basis to make an exception on the grounds the appointment involved a longer return journey than usual. Nor that one medical practitioner may have questioned the necessity of treatment another considers necessary (as any dispute about whether such treatment is in the person’s best interests should be escalated using procedures to decide such matters). If the Council considered funding this journey would cause an unforeseen and unreasonable cost for the Care Provider then this was a matter for the two parties to resolve. But passing the cost of the taxi on to Ms C was a fault.
50. On the third point I consider no-one should move into a care home setting and have no terms and conditions which set out the services covered by the care the Council is paying for. All users or their representatives should have a document that makes this clear. It is fault that Mrs B was never provided with such a document at the outset.
51. However, such a document would not prevent the Care Provider seeking to vary terms and conditions. So, subject to the other provisos discussed, the Care Provider could have still written to resident’s representatives in March 2019 looking to vary its policy on use of the car.
52. But it should have clearly given all residents a choice about whether to accept the new policy. While the Provider has subsequently claimed its policy to be optional there is nothing in either the letter it sent in March 2019 or its communications to Mrs B up to July 2021 which suggested this was the case. It presented the policy as a fait accompli and invoiced accordingly. I also find Mrs B had indicated disagreement with the application of the policy at the outset. Her email of April 2019 and subsequent communications with the social worker, which the Provider was made aware of, show Mrs B always questioned the fairness of the policy.
53. On the fourth point I find there is no clear evidence the charges the Provider has sought to recover from Ms C have been incurred at all. I have set out at paragraph 41 that if all residents were asked to contribute what the Care Provider initially asked Mrs B to pay then it would receive more than it says is the annual cost of running the vehicle. But I stress I do not know what others pay. It is also disputed whether the Council pays anything towards its running costs, given the disparity at the outset of Ms C’s care, between what the Care Provider says it costs to provide her with that care and what it receives from the Council.
54. Another complicating factor is that Ms C’s use of the car has been inconsistent. Some months during the pandemic she has used it only sporadically or not at all. The provider’s records of the trips taken by Ms C are also inconsistent in the recording of mileage at times. And there is no explanation for the sudden increase in use in May 2021. The Care Provider says this followed the easing of lockdown restrictions, where I would expect an increase in journeys. But I do not consider this can explain on its own such a significant increase in the number and distance of journeys taken by Ms C. So, I do not consider this has been explained satisfactorily. However, given the numerous other flaws with the arrangement detailed above I see no merit in pursuing enquiries about this.
55. Because overall I can find no justification for the charges being sought from Mrs B on Ms C’s account for all the reasons set out above.
56. I also consider the Care Provider was at fault in threatening recovery from Mrs B through the Courts and its unfounded suggestion she had not paid the travel costs as part of its wider concern she was mismanaging her daughter’s benefits.
57. But this case also reflects poorly on the Council. During its investigation of Mrs B’s complaint, I find it asked some pertinent questions of the Care Provider. But it failed to press the provider on how it distinguished which journeys formed part of Ms C’s assessed care needs. Nor did it follow up the flaw it identified that the Provider had no written agreement with Mrs B agreeing to the charges. It was unacceptable the Council could not comment on Ms C’s use of the car, when it said she should not be charged for certain uses.
58. In addition, I also reiterate the finding made above that it was unacceptable for the Council to expect Ms C to fund her own travel to a medical appointment in direct contradiction of what it said to Mrs B in the same response.
59. It is also clear the Council missed key information in its response to Mrs B’s complaint. She had raised her concerns with Ms C’s social worker in 2019 and been told not to pay the Provider’s charge at that time, with the implication the Council shared some of her concerns and was in discussions accordingly. While its records are not complete the Council had information confirming this account. In January 2020 the Provider had agreed to revisit aspects of its policy. Yet the Council never followed this up. It was fault for this to have happened. And further fault the Council’s investigation did not pick up on this.
60. All the above means in effect, the Council failed to complete an effective investigation of Ms C’s complaint.
61. In summary therefore I find fault because:

• the Care Provider has sought to charge Ms C for transport and travel costs which form part of her assessed needs which it agreed to meet when it began providing care to Ms C;
• the Care Provider failed to provide Ms C or Mrs B with any agreement setting out what care it provided as part of its agreement with the Council and what additional services it may charge for; the introduction of the policy to charge for use of the car was further flawed because it was not presented as being optional as later claimed;
• the Care Provider has not in any event justified the amount being sought from Ms C for her use of the car;
• the Council failed to follow up initial enquiries into the Care Provider’s practice;
• the Council then failed to complete an effective investigation into Mrs B’s complaint which should have identified the Provider’s poor practice;
• the Council also responded to Mrs B with inaccurate information.

62. I find these faults have caused injustice to Mrs B, as Ms C’s appointee, as follows:

• she has suffered unnecessary distress in being pursued for charges and facing allegations of mismanagement of her daughter’s benefits for not paying those charges;
• that distress has been compounded by the Council’s handling of her service request and complaint; it has put her to unnecessary time and trouble in pursuing this matter.

Back to top

Agreed action

63. The Council accepts these findings. To remedy the injustice caused to Mrs B it has agreed that within 20 working days of a decision on this complaint it will:
1. apologise to Mrs B accepting the findings of this investigation;
2. obtain a written assurance from the Care Provider that all outstanding charges arising from invoices for Ms C’s use of the car have been written off and no further action will be taken in collecting those (the Care Provider has indicated this is agreed);
3. that it should ensure Mrs B receives a refund for any payment made by her for Ms C to attend the medical appointment;
4. pay Mrs B £700 as a financial remedy; £300 is to reflect the distress caused to her by the actions of the Care Provider; a further £250 to reflect the distress caused by the actions of the Council and £150 to reflect her time and trouble in pursuing this matter;
64. I trust the Council will also liaise with the Care Provider to ascertain its current approach towards Ms C using the car. It should work to find a solution to ensure that in so far as her assessed care needs require travel and transport the burden for paying for that does not fall on Ms C beyond the contribution to her care costs the Council assesses she must pay.
65. Second, the Council has agreed to learn wider lessons from this complaint. Within 30 working days it will produce an action plan that will explore the areas set out below. This should provide specific time targets for completion of works. As a minimum the action plan will consider:
1. whether care plans for learning disabled adults are sufficiently clear in identifying what travel needs they have, which form part of their assessed needs; if necessary, how practice in this area can be improved;
2. whether existing contract and monitoring arrangements provide enough clarity on the part of residential care providers as to what the Council’s expectations are when it comes to the travel costs they must meet as part of the contracted care arrangements; in what circumstances might it be appropriate for a care provider to make additional charges to a resident to meet transport costs;
3. whether learning disabled adults in residential care (and their representatives) are being provided with terms and conditions which set out what services care providers are meeting as part of the package of care and what further expenses providers might incur on behalf of residents which will be the residents’ responsibility to fund.
66. Third, in view of the facts of this case I consider it appropriate the Council also review the Care Provider’s delivery of services to any other users where it has contracted for it to provide care (see paragraph 6 above). So, the Council has agreed to:
1. ascertain if other residents and/or their representatives have been provided with clear information setting out what services the Care Provider is providing as part of their package of care and what further expenses the Provider might incur on behalf of residents which will be the residents’ responsibility to fund; if not then the Council will look to ensure they receive that information;
2. ascertain whether other residents have been billed in the same way as Ms C for use of the car since 2019 and if so, what money the Provider has received from them; the Council will then review if those charges are reasonable and following the principles outlined in this decision statement seek a refund for those residents if appropriate;
3. ensure the current policy in force by the Care Provider has been suspended for those residents where it is paying for their care; and that any replacement policy introduced subsequently takes account of the principles set out in this statement on where the Provider might legitimately make charges for transport costs.
67. The Council should aim to complete the steps set out at paragraph 66 as soon as practicable. It will provide us with an update on progress after three months and every two months thereafter until these steps complete.

Back to top

Final decision

68. For reasons set out above I uphold this complaint finding fault by the Council causing injustice to Mrs B. The Council accepts these findings and has agreed action to remedy that injustice. I can therefore complete my investigation satisfied with its response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman