Summary: The Council acknowledges there has been a lack of clarity about the ‘Peace of Mind’ charge levied at the extra care accommodation and is now resolving that. There is no reason to waive the charge however as it is part of the service provided to residents.

The complaint

1. Mr X (as I shall call him) complains on behalf of a number of residents in an extra- care housing complex that the Council is charging them for a service they did not agree to and do not want.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Mr X and by the Council. We spoke to Mr X (and obtained the consent of other residents for him to make the complaint on their behalf). All parties had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement and I considered their comments before I reach a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X lives in an extra care housing complex. He arranged the tenancy himself. As part of the tenancy agreement there is a payment for a warden call (Peace of Mind) service. The agreement says:

“The Peace of Mind service is the provision of support by the landlord to enable tenants of the extra care scheme to fully enjoy the benefits of the amenities of the extra care scheme in safety and comfort and shall include:..

Assistance in cases of emergency provided by the on-site care and support team together with an emergency 24 hour call system….”

6. The Council says it only places people there who have care and support needs. It says that as tenants like Mr X (and those on whose behalf he makes the complaint) made their own arrangement direct with the provider, their agreement does not require an assessment for eligible needs.
7. The brochure issued by the housing organisation which lets the apartments describes other support which is available if people need it. It says, “there is an emergency alert system featuring intercom, pull cord and pendant or wrist alarms – the onsite care agency is only a call or buzz away, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year”.
8. Mr X says he discovered that in addition to the charge he was paying of £1.37 a week, the Council would also charge £900 a year to the on-site care provider for a “Peace of Mind” charge. He complained to the Council. He said many residents were able to live without the care facilities offered and knew if they required them they would pay an extra charge. He said the imposition of the charge suggested their retirement complex was being turned into a care home, and they very much objected to the imposition of a charge for services which were not needed.
9. The Council replied. It said the £1.37 charge levied by the housing provider only covered the provision and maintenance of the emergency pull-cord and pendant system. It said the Peace of Mind service commissioned by the Council (for which the £900 charge was payable) covered the response by a member of the on-site care team if a tenant actually pulled the cord. It said the Peace of Mind charge was not an optional service for tenants to opt in or out of.
10. Mr X appealed against the charge. He said when they signed their contracts with the housing provider they were not made aware that the charge was only for the provision of the pull-cord and pendant. They assumed the weekly charge of £1.37 was the only charge being made. He said the housing provider made no mention of “extra care housing”.
11. The Council responded again but rejected the appeal. It acknowledged the term “Peace of Mind” was used to refer to different services and said it would ask the housing provider to clarify this in its publications.
12. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman on his own behalf and for some other residents. He said the imposition of the charge on tenants who did not require it was unjust.
13. The Council says the tenancy agreement does not mention the charge for the Peace of Mind service as this is charged for by the Council. It says “(the housing provider) has advised that all tenants are informed verbally about the charge at tenancy sign up, stipulating their liability to pay, the amount, and that the Council would be invoicing for this service.”
14. It says it accepts there is a lack of clear written information to alert tenants to the charge. It says, “This is something we will actively address with extra care housing landlords to ensure that we have a more formalised and consistent approach to applying charges and communicating these to tenants going forward. We plan to begin consultation with landlords in September 2023, with a view to conclude our recommendations within a 3-month period.” The Council also says a that a change in process to include written evidence that tenants have been informed of the Council invoicing for the service will be included as part of the improvement plan.
15. The Council says, “Information relating to (this complex) is clear that the aim of the complex is to provide peace of mind, knowing that a dedicated team is on hand 24 hours a day. Therefore, people that choose to live there are fully aware that this service is provided to all residents, and it is not an 'opt out until needed' service.”

Analysis

16. There is some lack of clarity in the housing provider’s information about the Peace of Mind service which the Council acknowledges and will now address.
17. However, in my view there is sufficient information available within the tenancy agreement and the housing provider’s brochure to make it clear to prospective tenants the services that will be available. Contrary to what Mr X says, the tenancy agreement does indeed mention the “extra care scheme”.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I have completed this investigation on the basis there is no fault on the part of the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman