Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of the charges for his mother’s care, which he says put them to unnecessary time and trouble. The Council accepts it charged Mrs Y for care she did not receive. It has apologised and made changes to its process to prevent this from happening again. The Council was not at fault over the way it calculated the refund for the care Mrs Y did not receive.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of the charges for his mother’s care, which he says put them to unnecessary 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 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 in response to my enquiries;
• 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 mother, Mrs Y, lives at home with a package of care from MK Care and Response (Homecare), the Council’s inhouse Care Provider. Mrs Y pays the full cost of her care.
6. Mr X previously complained to the Ombudsman about incorrect charges for his mother’s care in 2021 (20012572). We found fault with the Council over the Care Provider’s failure to tell it about a period when Mrs Y did not receive care, which resulted in it charging her for care she had not received, causing her unnecessary frustration. We also found the Council did not invoice according to its schedule, but this did not cause any injustice. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs Y for the time and trouble and frustration it had caused. It told us it now sent invoices at least a week after the end of the invoice period, which should give care providers enough time to tell it about any care they had not delivered. It also agreed to remind staff of the need to issue invoices in line with its schedule.
7. Mrs Y went into hospital in July 2022. When she came out of hospital on 28 July, the Council arranged for two care workers to visit on each call, because of a decline in her mobility. Before going into hospital, she had needed one care worker for each call. The Council decided not to charge the increased cost of her care package (from £339.36 to £610.47 a week), on the basis her need for two care workers may be temporary.
8. Mrs Y went into hospital again from 23 to 27 August and from 29 August to 3 September.
9. The invoice for 2 August to 5 September (issued on 15 September) did not take account of the hospital stays, so the Council took full payment from Mrs Y’s account on 1 October.
10. The Council says it exercised further discretion not to charge Mrs Y the increased cost of her care between 6 September and 3 October “because of the concerns already raised over the charges and since the increased care package wasn’t authorised in the system at that time”. The Council did this despite recognising Mrs Y’s need for two care workers was not temporary.
11. The Care Provider told the Council on 20 September about the care it had not provided when Mrs Y was in hospital. As this was too late for the invoice produced on 15 September, the credit was not picked up until the October invoice cycle.
12. The Council started charging Mrs Y for two care workers from 4 October.
13. On 3 November the Council issued a credit note for £202.72 for the care missed when Mrs Y was in hospital in August. The Council applied the credit to her account on 1 December.
14. When responding to Mr X’s and Mrs Y’s complaint in June 2022, the Council said it had made changes to its processes and was now doing daily, rather than monthly, call verification checks. This meant it could take account of any reduced care in the relevant invoice run. It said it was planning to set up a new system which would import information about the services delivered directly into the invoicing system. It apologised for the inconvenience they had been caused.
15. The Council told Mr X and Mrs Y it had originally charged her £339.36 a week for her care, despite the fact she had spent time in hospital. It said the cost of her care during the week ending 29 August had been £271.75, resulting in a credit of £67.61 for that week. This took account of the fact two care workers had attended each call. Similarly, it said the cost of Mrs Y’s care for the week ending 5 September had been £204.25, resulting in a credit of £135.11. The Council said the approach it had taken reflected the fact it had capped Mrs Y’s charges at £339.36 a week. It did not accept the argument that Mrs Y’s charges should be reduced by £48.48 for each day she had not received care.
16. Mr X says Mrs Y should not have had to wait until December to have money refunded to her. He says the Council should have a process to refund over‑payments much more quickly than that.

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

17. There is no dispute over the fact the Council was at fault for charging Mrs Y for care she did not receive, causing unnecessary inconvenience. This is because its Care Provider failed to tell the Council about the missed calls, despite having over a week to do so. This was a repeat of the mistake made in 2021
18. It is not clear why it took the Council two months to refund the money to Mrs Y or why it could not have done this when it took a payment from her in November. However, the Council has made changes to its process which should ensure it invoices correctly from the start. It will also be setting up a new system which will automate the process and take away the need for manual adjustments. Given that the Council has already apologised and Mr X is not seeking financial redress, there is nothing more for me to recommend.
19. On the basis the Council had agreed to cap Mrs Y’s charges at £339.36 a week between 28 July and 3 October 2021, it was not at fault for charging her for two care workers when working out how much she had to pay when she spent further time in hospital. The cap meant it agreed not to charge Mrs Y more than £339.36 a week and it did not do so.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I have completed my investigation on the basis there has been fault causing injustice which has already been remedied.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman