Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to deal properly with the charges for his father’s care, resulting in him receiving a bill for over £4,000 which he cannot afford to pay. The Council accepts it took too long to collect the charges. When it did, the charges were higher than it had said they would be, adding to Mr X’s confusion. The Council has agreed to waive £200 of the outstanding charges.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council has failed to deal properly with the charges for his father’s care, resulting in him receiving a bill for over £4,000 which he cannot afford to pay.

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 a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• discussed the complaint with Mr X;
• considered the comments and documents the Council has provided;
• considered the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies; and
• invited comments on a draft of this statement from Mr X and the Council, for me to consider before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

5. Mr X’s father, Mr Y, started receiving support from the Council in June 2021. Mr X manages his father’s finances for him.
6. After completing its financial assessment, the Council wrote to Mr Y, care of his son, to let him know he would have to pay £136.24 a week towards the cost of his care (£146.79 for nine hours of support). It enclosed a direct debit mandate which Mr X returned.
7. The Council wrote to them again on 11 August to update the financial assessment. It said Mr Y could afford to pay up to £253.76 a week towards the cost of his care, so he had to pay the full cost of his care package (£146.79) from 21 June. It appears the first assessment did not take account of all Mr Y’s income. The Council sent them a further direct debt mandate.
8. The Council updated its assessment again on 7 September due to an award of pension credit. It said Mr Y could afford to pay up to £237.84 a week. This meant he still had to pay £146.79 a week from 21 June. The Council sent them a further direct debit mandate.
9. Mr X says he frequently called the Council during this time because it was not taking payments from Mr Y’s account. He says he kept asking the Council how much his father had to pay, as he was confused by the changes. When he called on 1 February, the Council told him there were problems with the care provider’s information which meant it had not generated a bill.
10. The Council wrote to them again on 1 March 2022 to let them know it was backdating the charges to 20 June 2021, on the basis that was when Mr Y’s care package started (not 21 June). It confirmed Mr Y’s maximum charge remained £237.84, which meant he still had to pay £146.79 a week. It sent them a further direct debit mandate.
11. On 16 March 2022 the Council wrote to tell them of the “annual uprating” (to reflect changes in benefits and pension changes). It said Mr Y's maximum charge from 11 April 2022 was £245.70 a week. It said Mr Y therefore had to pay £200.27 a week (the full cost of his care package). It appears his care package had increased.
12. In March 2022 Mr X received a bill for £4,129. He complained to the Council. He said:
• he had been chasing the bill since his father started receiving care;
• it had never told him how much Mr Y had to pay, just that the maximum charge was £245.70;
• it told him the care provider had not been billing the Council properly, resulting in him receiving a huge bill out of the blue.
13. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint on the basis it had written to him about the charges and therefore he knew what his father had to pay. It accepted there had been an error which meant it had not taken the charges. But it said Mr Y still had to pay the bill. It said they could negotiate a payment schedule if he did not have enough money in his account to pay in full immediately. Mr X says, while he put some money aside, his father does not have enough money to pay the outstanding charges.
14. Although the Council told Mr X his father would have to pay £146.79 a week during 2021/22, the average weekly charge has been £157.38. This reflects the fact that Mr Y has to pay the full cost of his care and sometimes he has received more than the nine hours a week the Council assessed him as needing.

Is there evidence of fault by the Council which caused injustice?

15. There is no dispute over the fact the Council took too long to start collecting the charges for Mr Y’s care. That was fault by the Council. The issue for me to consider is what injustice this may have caused and whether there are grounds to recommend a remedy. The charges are legitimate. If there had been no fault by the Council, Mr Y would have been paying them from the start. The Council explained what the charges were in its various letters, so Mr X had an opportunity to put the money aside. That he did not do so, is not because of fault by the Council. Besides, the Council has offered to discuss a payment schedule. However, the actual charges have been higher than the Council said they would be. There was nothing in its letters to say that might happen. Within that context, there are grounds to recommend a modest waiver of the outstanding charges.

Back to top

Agreed action

16. I recommended the Council:
• within four weeks, waives £200 of Mr Y’s outstanding charges; and
• within eight weeks, provides evidence it has taken action to prevent delays in collecting charges and to ensure that full costs payers are told if their charges are likely to fluctuate and could be higher than their assessed charge.

The Council has agreed to do this.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have completed my investigation on the basis there has been fault by the Council causing injustice which requires a remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman