Summary: Miss X complains about several care providers’ failure to provide care for her late mother, Mrs X. She says she will not pay the care contributions the Council is seeking as it has not provided evidence of care. We found fault by the Council and recommended a remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X, complains the Council failed to provide satisfactory evidence of the domiciliary care provided to her mother Mrs X, who has since passed away. She says the care provided was not in line with the care package. Miss X also says the Council delayed providing information and then sent unsigned time sheets, some of which did not tally with the invoices. Miss X says this has caused her distress and time and trouble.

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’. 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).
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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).
4. Where someone has died, we will not normally seek a remedy for injustice caused to that person in the same way as we might for someone who is still living. We would not expect a public or private body to make a payment to someone’s estate. Therefore, if the impact of a fault was on someone who has died, we will not recommend an organisation make a payment in recognition of, for example, the impact of poor care that person might have received while they were alive. This is because the person who received the poor care cannot benefit from such a payment. However, if we consider the person who has complained to us has been adversely affected by seeing the impact of that poor care on their relative, we may recommend a token payment to them as a remedy for their own distress.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have discussed the complaint with the complainant and considered the complaint and the copy correspondence provided by the complainant. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. This included care plans and care reviews. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Charging for social care services: the power to charge

6. A council has a duty to arrange care and support for those with eligible needs, and a power to meet both eligible and non-eligible needs in settings other than care homes. A council has discretion to charge for non-residential care following a person’s needs assessment. Where it decides to charge a council must follow the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 and have regard to the Care Act statutory guidance. (Care Act 2014, section 14 and 17).

What happened

7. Mrs X was disabled and had a care plan which the Council assessed. This stated that Mrs X had eligible needs and required care at home. The Council commissioned a care provider from 2017. Carers visited Mrs X at home four times a day to provide personal care.
8. The Council had carried out a financial assessment to calculate Mrs X’s contribution for the care based on her income. In 2018 her contribution towards the care costs was £93 per week. The contribution increased to £129 per week in 2019.
9. Between 2017 and 2019, there were several changes in Mrs X’s care providers. A total of seven care providers were contracted by the Council to support Mrs X during that period. Mrs X did not sign most of the time sheets which showed the hours the carers visited. Miss X says this was because the carers did not present the sheets to Mrs X for signing, or because the care was not being delivered.
10. Mrs X sadly passed away in late 2019.

The care contribution charges

11. In December 2019 the Council sent Miss X, who was Mrs X’s financial representative, invoices for Mrs X’s care contributions. This initially amounted to over £16000. The Council later revised this to £5851.
12. In February 2020 Miss X asked for evidence of the domiciliary care provided because she said that she and her family had raised many concerns about the standard of care including a safeguarding enquiry in late 2018.
13. The Council sent some of the carer’s timesheets to Miss X in February and May 2020.
14. In December 2020 Miss X replied, apologising for her delay in responding. She questioned the timesheets because she said some of the hours stated on the invoices did not tally with the timesheets she had seen. She also said the family would not pay the charges where the timesheets were not signed.
15. In January and February 2021 Miss X emailed the Council saying it had not replied to her request for it to substantiate the charges.
16. The Council replied in March 2021 apologising for its delay. It said it had sent some timesheets. However, it said it could not access some other care providers’ time sheets due officers working at home during Covid 19. It sent some further timesheets later in March 2021.
17. In April 2021 Miss X complained that she had been waiting 16 months for the Council to provide the information to back up the invoices. She later emailed the Council to say that the family were unable to pay any invoices without signed timesheets showing Mrs X agreed with the hours and services carried out. She explained that the family had raised many issues regarding care not being provided, carers not turning up and not completing the care tasks. She referred to the information and said that only two time sheets had been signed by Mrs X. with regard to other care providers, the Council had sent call logs which were not signed by her mother, and on one log Mrs X had written that the cares turned up late and she had to complete the tasks herself.
18. The Council replied on 26 April 2021 that some of the requested information dated back to 2017 and it was unable to supply all the time sheets but had provided call logs where these were available. It also said that Mrs X and her family had not challenged the care charges or disputed the care package while it was in place.
19. Miss X replied that it was untrue for the Council to say she had not challenged the care provided. She said that the family had reported many issues which had been noted and had meetings about the problems. She said her mother had gone into respite care twice due to care not being delivered. In her view the Council should be able to show that not only was the care commissioned but it was also delivered.
20. The Council replied on 30 April 2021 that it would look into the issue. However, it did not respond.
21. Miss X complained at stage one of the Council’s procure on 20 July 2021. She said the family had been trying to pay the care charges since December 2019. The Council had not sent the information required. The Council had said it was looking into the matter in April 2021 but had not replied. She said the matter could be resolved if the Council provided accurate time sheets signed by her mother or her representatives.
22. The Council replied in October 2021 after Miss X chased a response in September. It apologised for its delay in replying. The Council said it took longer than usual to reply as it had to contact a number of providers. The Council said it noted that the family was happy with the care provided by only one provider, who held the majority value of the outstanding care contributions. The Council had considered requesting payment for this provider and not the others. But the Council said that Mrs X had not signed any carer timesheets for this provider, or for any other providers. It appeared that this was a clear pattern of accepted behaviour. The Council said it was concerned that for consistency it should apply the same rule for across all the whole of the care provided. Therefore, it said . it would pursue payments for all the invoices.
23. Mrs X’s other daughter Miss Y, complained further in October 2021. She said the family had sent over 400 emails regarding the care provided. They had complained to the Ombudsman and raised a safeguarding enquiry which was unfairly dismissed. She said the Council had taken two years to provide the information and this had caused the family distress.
24. Miss X also complained in October 2021 regarding the length of time the Council had taken. The Council acknowledged Miss Y’s complaint in October 2021. However, the Council did not respond.
25. In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries the Council provided some timesheets which were signed by the carers. Two sheets were signed by Mrs X. The hours shown were in line with the care plan. The Council also provided some call log information which showed the care tasks carried out at each visit.
26. The Council has offered to write off the care contributions where it does not have time sheets signed by either Mrs X or the carer. This has reduced the outstanding care contributions to £2542.

Analysis

27. It is clear Mrs X generally did not sign the carer’s time sheets. However, failure to sign a timesheet is not evidence that care was not provided. And, where a service user does not sign a time sheet, this does not mean that they do not need to pay the contributions.
28. I consider the time sheets signed by the carers and call logs the Council has provided are satisfactory evidence that the care was provided in accordance with the care plans.
29. I can see that Mrs X and her representatives made complaints about certain issues such as carers failing to arrive on time, not being trained to use certain equipment and roughness when handling Mrs X. Miss X brought some of her complaints about her mother’s care to the Ombudsman in 2018 and these were considered and remedied at the time.
30. The Council also carried out a safeguarding investigation in 2019 about an event in 2018. However, it closed the concern as unsubstantiated.
31. I consider there was fault by the Council because it delayed responding to Miss X’s request for evidence of the care provided. Miss X first asked for the information in February 2020. There was some delay on Miss X’s part in pursuing the matter in 2020.
32. When the Council did provide evidence, this was not complete. However, I note that some information was lost due to flooding and there were difficulties during Covid 19 lockdowns in obtaining the information. Nevertheless, Miss X was put to time and trouble pursuing the information and has had to complain to the Ombudsman. I have recommended a remedy for her time and trouble.
33. There was also fault by the Council because its responses to the family’s complaints were significantly delayed without an update on progress. I have taken account of this when recommending a remedy.
34. Miss X queried the hours shown on timesheets not corresponding with the Council’s invoices. The Council has explained that the invoices showed all the carers’ hours as there were two care providers at certain times. But the Council did not have timesheets for all care providers. The Council is not seeking payment of the contribution from Mrs X’s estate for weeks where it has no time sheets from any provider.

Back to top

Agreed action

35. The Council offered to waive more than half of the outstanding care contributions because it does not have time sheets which were signed by either Mrs X, or by the carer providing care. This leaves an amount remaining of £2542.
36. I consider this is a suitable remedy in view of the poor record keeping by care providers.
37. I also recommended that within one month of my decision:
• the Council pays Miss X £200 for her time and trouble in seeking the timesheet information and for the distress caused by its delay in responding to her requests and complaints.
• the Council reminds care providers that it contracts, that they should ensure they note the times attended and the care provided. The Council could consider advising care providers to use electronic call logging to evidence the times attended.
38. The Council has agreed the recommendations I made.
39. 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.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I found fault by the Council causing injustice. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman