Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council pursuing her for a care fee debt she says she does not owe. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its decision to pursue Miss X for the debt to justify us investigating. It would be reasonable for Miss X to seek a review by providing further evidence as the Council has proposed. There is not enough evidence of injustice caused to Miss X by a document with an alleged forged signature to warrant investigation and investigation of this matter would not result in a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Miss X’s representative Miss Y complains the Council:
1. is pursuing Miss X for a care debt she does not owe;
2. may have confused Miss X with another client with a similar name;
3. forged Miss X’s signature on a document.
2. Miss Y says the issues around the debt have made Miss X ill, depressed, nervous, worried and anxious. She says the matter has stopped Miss X from getting care since March 2020 as she feels she should not be paying for it, which has in turn affected her everyday life and health.
3. Miss X wants the Council to:
• write off the debt;
• pay compensation for the stress and worry caused to her;
• review her notes to make sure she is the indebted person;
• provide better training for social workers;
• make sure social workers are not rude to clients; and
• sack social workers who cannot do their jobs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for an organisation review or appeal.

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

5. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means we weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Miss Y and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss Y says Miss X has stated she was told by the Council when she moved to its area in 2007/8 that she did not have to pay for her care. Miss X also says she has never received any care invoices from the Council. The Council says Miss X owes a debt to it which it has told her about on multiple occasions. It says it has given her a full explanation of the amount and how it has accrued, sending her a total of 78 care fee invoices at four-weeks intervals. It first sent a debt recovery letter to Miss X in May 2018. Officers say they have not found evidence on Miss X’s file that she was ever told she did not have to pay for her care. On balance, it is more likely than not that the Council has advised Miss X about the care fee payments she was liable to make to contribute to her care over a long period of time, and at least since 2018. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its pursuit of the debt here to justify an investigation.
8. Miss X says the Council may have confused her with another client with a similar name because some documents she got from its files related to another person. The Council may have sent Miss X another person’s information in error. But that does not prove the debt being pursued is not Miss X’s. The Council has provided the 2018 debt recovery letter which bears her correct name and address, so it is more likely than not that no such error has occurred here. There is not enough evidence to show the Council has mistaken Miss X for someone else, and as a result is mistaking her debt for someone else’s, to warrant investigation.
9. Miss X believes there may be discrepancies in the figure the Council is pursuing because of free care she could have received after discharge from hospital. Council officers have invited Miss Y to provide further information for their consideration about hospital stays or other issues which she or Miss X believe may have led to any incorrect care charges. If Miss Y has such information, it would be reasonable for her to provide it to the Council on behalf of Miss X so it can be reviewed, as this might affect the sum the Council considers is owed. It would then be for the Council to consider it and decide whether it alters the sum. If Miss Y pursues this route, that would result in a new decision by the Council, so any dissatisfaction with the outcome of the Council’s review would require a fresh complaint to the Council first.
10. Miss X alleges the Council forged her signature on a document on her file. Miss Y does not say what that document is, or its date. In any event, there is no claim this issue caused Miss X any significant personal injustice which would justify us investigating it. Furthermore, even if we did investigate, it is unlikely we would be able to gather evidence allowing us to make a finding on what happened around the signing of the document. Investigation of this issue now would not achieve any worthwhile or different outcome.
11. Miss Y says Miss X stopped her care provision in March 2020 which she says has adversely affected her everyday life and health. The Council could not force Miss X to accept the care and she had the capacity to decide to end it. It was Miss X’s decision to stop her care, based on her conviction that she should not have to contribute to her past fees. If Miss X wishes to receive future provision for unmet needs, she may wish to seek financial and care needs assessments under the relevant 2014 Care Act regulations and Council policies. But this should be with an understanding that her circumstances might mean she is required to contribute financially to any costs for the care provided.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its decision to pursue her for the care fee debt to justify us investigating; and
• it is reasonable for Miss X to seek a review of the debt sum by providing further information which might affect the fee amount, as the Council has offered; and
• there is not enough evidence of injustice caused to Miss X by a document with an alleged forged signature to warrant investigation, and investigation would not achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman