Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s late complaint about the actions of her previous Care Provider. This is because Mrs B could have come to us sooner if she was concerned about the contractual agreement. There is no good reason for us to exercise discretion and investigate this late complaint now.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained she was charged for care services neither she nor her late husband received between 2015 and 2019. Mrs B says her care provider illegally backdated her contract. Mrs B says she paid £5,200 for care she did not receive and wants it reimbursed. Mrs B says she also wants compensation for the distress and uncertainty she experienced as full-time carer for her husband, not knowing if someone would have been able to stay with him if needed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 Care Provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I discussed the concerns with Mrs B and considered the information and documentation provided by Mrs B and the Care Provider. I sent Mrs B a copy of my draft decision for comment.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr and Mrs B moved into Extra Care Housing in 2015 and paid an additional £25 a week for care.
5. Mrs B says neither she nor her husband required planned care but agreed with the Care Provider that if she became ill or needed to go into hospital a member of the team would stay with Mr B until family arrived.
6. In 2016 the care provider said Mr and Mrs B had an ‘old style’ contract and had been misinformed that a member of staff would stay with Mr B until family arrived. Mrs B says she would never have moved into Extra Care Housing if she had known she was paying for £1300 a year for an alarm call service, which was also provided and included in her service charges.
7. Mrs B complained to the Care Provider in 2016. Mrs B says although they knew of the additional £25 a week charge, they accepted on the basis someone would sit with Mr B if needed. Mr and Mrs B did not require any planned care services. The Care Provider’s response dated 1 November 2016 explained it was an Extra Care Housing Scheme (ECH) which provided core services and planned care for independent living which required an additional £25 a week charge for each apartment.
8. The Care Provider explained it had not refused to support Mr B in an emergency situation and would respond to all emergency calls to ensure residents are safe and comfortable, and where necessary seek further assistance from external agencies (family, ambulance, doctors social workers etc). It said the purpose of the core service is to provide a first response in emergencies and other appropriate unplanned care requests for personal assistance. The Care Provider confirmed it would respond and ensure Mr B was supported in an emergency, however it could not guarantee that a carer would stay with him permanently for an extended period of time. The Care Provider explained this would depend on availability of care staff at the time.
9. Mrs B complained again in 2020 and the Care Provider reiterated if such a situation had of occurred when Mr and Mrs B lived in the ECH facility Mr B would have been supported in an emergency situation. Mrs B has confirmed a situation did not happen where emergency support was required before Mr B sadly passed away in October 2017.
10. Mrs B says the initial contract she received said she they would sit with Mr B, but a second contract was sent omitting this service. A third contract was sent when the Care Provider found the contract she received was an old one and was unsigned. The Care Provider apologised to Mrs B about the administrative errors in the 2016 contracts, i.e old style contract which was unsigned, and offered to pay her £200 for the distress caused.
11. Mrs B says she paid twice for an alarm service as the service contract also included an alarm service. The Care Provider explained it did not know of the terms and agreements of Mrs B’s service contract.
12. Mrs B says she did not know she could have come to us in 2016 or 2017 when she complained and was ill herself in 2020 so could not come to us following the Care Provider’s final response referring to us. Neither Mr or Mrs B was caused an injustice because of the change in contract in 2016 to exclude a sitting service because they did not require this service for the duration they lived in the ECH facility. We will not investigate this late complaint. Mrs B knew of the changes to the contract in 2016 and had complained to the Care Provider.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate this late complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman