Summary: Mrs X complains the Council sent her letters about her mother’s care home fees to the wrong address, so she received an unexpected invoice for a shortfall of fees. We found fault because the Council sent the letters to the wrong address. But this fault did not cause Mrs X an injustice and so we have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant Mrs X. She complains the Council sent letters about her mother’s (Mrs Y) care home fees to the wrong address. This meant Mrs X was unaware of a shortfall until she received an invoice from the Council causing her distress.
2. Mrs X wants the Council to allow her to pay half the debt as she considers she is only partly to blame. Mrs X recognises she could have avoided the debt by checking the monthly invoices she received or setting up a direct debit to pay Mrs Y’s contribution. But questions why the Council allowed her to build up a backlog as she would have amended the standing order if alerted to the shortfall.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have read the papers submitted by Mrs X and discussed the complaint with her. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided.
6. Mrs X 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

7. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
8. Mrs X held power of attorney for financial matters for Mrs Y. Mrs Y moved into a care home in 2011. The Council carried out a financial assessment and assessed Mrs Y as being able to self-fund her care due to the amount of her capital. Mrs Y sold her property in 2013 to pay for her care.
9. In 2013 Mrs X discussed with a Council officer the various ways of paying for Mrs Y’s care fees. Mrs Y paid using a standing order. The officer advised Mrs X to use a direct debit as it would allow the Council to make the necessary changes to Mrs Y’s contributions. The Council said clients using a standing order to pay must make their own arrangements with the bank to ensure the standing order matched the payments due. The officer sent Mrs X a direct debit mandate form.
10. The Council says Mrs X did not return the form and chose not to switch to the direct debit method so the Council could not amend the contributions due.
11. In 2015 Mrs X contacted the Council as the amount of Mrs Y’s capital dropped. The Council carried out a new financial assessment. Mrs X sent further information in about Mrs Y’s capital. The Council carried out another financial assessment and credited a large refund to Mrs Y’s account. The Council asked Mrs X to change Mrs Y’s payments from a calendar month to a payment every 4 weeks. The Council told Mrs X of Mrs Y’s due contribution and to amend the standing order.
12. The Council invited Mrs X to send in Mrs Y’s bank statements every 12 months. This was because Mrs Y’s contribution included income from her capital due to the level of her savings and affected the contribution she was asked to make. Mrs X did not send in any further information.
13. From 2016 the Council paid most Mrs Y’s care home fees as she had used all her money from the sale of her property.
14. In 2017 Mrs X moved house and told the Council. The Council amended the case records to change the address for invoices to Mrs X’s address but entered a wrong address. The Council continued to send Mrs X annual letters and monthly invoices outlining Mrs Y’s care fees due. The Council has provided copies of the annual letters and some monthly invoices. These show Mrs Y’s contributions increased slightly each year.
15. Sadly, Mrs Y died in April 2021. The Council issued Mrs X with an invoice for £1599 being the shortfall in Mrs Y’s contributions amassed from 2016.
16. Mrs X complained she was not aware of any shortfall. Mrs X said she checked there was enough money in Mrs Y’s account every month to pay for her care. But did not check the amount going out was the same as the charge as she assumed it would be. Mrs X accepted a shortfall of fees but felt the Council should have told her before now. Mrs X complained the Council had sent letters to the wrong address, so she had not received them. Mrs X said she was distressed to receive the invoice and had the Council told her of the shortfall each month she would have changed the standing order.

The Council’s response to Mrs X’s complaint

17. The Council responded to Mrs X. It explained she spoke to officers in April 2013 and advised to use direct debit to pay Mrs Y’s contribution so it could amend the payments due. But Mrs X did not return the direct debit mandate. The Council said officers advised Mrs X in 2015 of the contribution that was due and to amend the standing order. The Council confirmed it invited Mrs X to send in Mrs Y’s bank statements every 12 months. But Mrs X did not do so. Because of this the Council had no reason to contact her other than the annual changes to Ms Y’s income, fees, and charges.
18. The Council acknowledged it changed Mrs X’s address in March 2017 and put in the wrong address. But it was unaware of this as the letters were not returned marked with ‘wrong address’ or not delivered. The Council said it would normally expect this to happen and it would take any necessary action. The Council confirmed it previously sent the annual letters to Mrs X at her old address and she had not highlighted a lack of such letters from 2017 onwards.
19. The Council confirmed it issued invoices every four weeks to Mrs X at the correct address notifying of Mrs Y’s contribution. The Council said Mrs X received these letters and checked Mrs Y had enough funds in the bank to cover the payment. The Council’s invoice had the amount due, the period it covered and date due clearly recorded.
20. The Council accepted the annual letters for Mrs Y’s charge may have been misdirected or not delivered. But Mrs X was receiving all invoices due and so aware of the changes for Mrs Y’s contribution. The Council said it had told Mrs X that as attorney she was responsible for Mrs Y’s finances, and she amended the payments due.
21. The Council explains the reports it uses on its debtor’s system provides details for those who have not paid their invoices. It does not have a report to highlight when there has been a shortfall in payment against invoices.
22. The Council confirmed the shortfall was £1599.45, payable from Mrs Y’s estate. The Council refused Mrs X’s request to only pay half the arrears as it had ‘taken steps’ to make her aware of the payments due. It acknowledged it sent the annual letters to the incorrect address. But it issued invoices every four weeks to Mrs X at the correct address. The invoices gave the period of charge with the balance requested. It considers that receiving the invoices should have prompted Mrs X to amend the standing order with the bank. The Council said it was her role as attorney for finances to ensure she met Mrs Y’s obligations. It was not the Council’s role to tell her how to manage Mrs Y’s finances. The Council says the funds are payable in full.

My assessment

23. The Council accepts it sent the annual letters to Mrs X to the wrong address. I consider this is fault by the Council as it incorrectly entered an address for Mrs X in 2017. But I do not consider it has caused a significant injustice to Mrs X and it is unlikely that further investigation will lead to a different outcome. This is because the evidence provided shows Council officers spoke to Mrs X about using a direct debit payment method for Mrs Y and sent her the relevant forms to do so. This would allow the Council to amend any payments due. However, Mrs X chose not to opt for this payment method but to remain using a standing order. As such it was for Mrs X to ensure she was paying the correct amount for Mrs Y.
24. The Council also advised Mrs X to amend the standing order in 2015. So, it shows Mrs X was alerted to the need to change the standing order to ensure she made the correct payments.
25. While the annual letters went to the wrong address from 2017 the evidence shows the monthly invoices for Mrs Y’s contributions were sent to Mrs X at the correct address. These showed the amounts due which were gradually increasing. I consider the invoices were adequate to alert Mrs X to the payments due. It was for Mrs X as Mrs Y’s attorney to check the amounts payable and ensure she paid the correct contribution.
26. The debt built up over five years as the Council does not have a reporting system to alert it to shortfalls. This is unfortunate but I consider the responsibility was with Mrs X to ensure the correct payments were made for Mrs Y’s contributions. And there is no dispute that Mrs Y received the care she is being charged for.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I am completing my investigation. There was fault by the Council as it sent letters to Mrs X about Mrs Y’s care home fees to the wrong address. But the fault has not caused a significant injustice to Mrs X, and it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman