Summary: The Council was at fault because it delayed pursuing charges for the late Mr A’s residential care. However, this did not cause injustice that warrants a further remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council sent demands for payment of care home fees to his late father Mr A’s family for a period four years earlier, and has not explained the reasons for these. He says his late father’s estate has been finalised and this caused anxiety and time and trouble for him to provide evidence of payments made.

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 have discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the information he provided. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents it provided. Mr 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

2019-2021

5. In 2019 Mr A had moved into a care home on a temporary basis. The Council completed a financial assessment in April 2019 and advised Mr A’s representative that his contribution to the charge for the home was £183 per week. This was to be paid directly to the care home with the Council paying the difference.
6. The Council changed its terms from 8 April 2019 and required the service user Mr A, to pay contributions to the Council. It would then pay the full charge due to the care home.
7. In May Mr A made a payment of £367 to the Council. The Council advised the family that this was due to the care home as it was for arrears due before 8 April 2019. The Council destroyed the cheque, and Mr A paid the care home £367.
8. Mr A made further payments to the Council from May 2019. From June 2019 he became a permanent resident.
9. In August 2019 the Council revised Mr A’s financial assessment taking account of the value his home from September 2019 as his wife had passed away. Mr A was now responsible for the full cost of his care.
10. The Council sent an invoice to Mr A in September 2019 for £2618. The Council’s records show that it revised the account on the same day applying a credit because it had duplicated the period of some charges. The total amount outstanding reduced to £697. The Council did not send a further invoice showing the reduced balance until 2023.
11. Mr A passed away in 2021. The Council says that his representatives did not advise it of his death until May 2022. Mr X says the family did advise the Council about Mr A’s death via the Tell Us Once Scheme.

2023-2024

12. In August 2023 the Council noted the outstanding balance of £697. It sent an invoice to Mr A’s representative. The representative questioned the invoice and asked for a breakdown of the charges as he believed these had been paid.
13. The Council chased the outstanding invoice again in January 2024. Mr X became involved and asked the Council for an explanation.
14. In the correspondence that followed Mr X said he believed the Mr A had paid whenever the Council sent an invoice. The Council had not recorded a cheque payment of £367 in May 2019 and another payment of £366 in August 2019. Some of the payments stated not match with payments Mr A made. He said the delay by the Council in seeking payment caused him difficulty and anxiety.
15. The Council replied and confirmed in a summary all the payments made and the invoices sent. It noted Mr A had paid one cheque for £367 to the Council. It had received another cheque for £367 in error in May 2019 and it had destroyed this. It said that by September 2019 the amount outstanding was £697 after correcting duplicate charges.
16. Mr A said he calculated the unpaid amount was £484 but there were still discrepancies, and the Council should not send invoices five years after the event.
17. The Council apologised for the delay. But it said that it had a duty to recover any outstanding charges where these were payable.
18. In March 2024 Mr X complained to the Council.
19. In its response to Mr X’s complaint the Council said that it had contacted Mr A’s representative in 2023. It had checked the total charges and payments received and confirmed that £697 was outstanding. The Council apologised for its delay in sending the invoice. It recognised it should have contacted Mr A’s representatives more regularly. It said it had taken steps to address invoicing delays. It had increased resources in this area and introduced an automated invoicing system.

Analysis

20. The Council has explained the charges it raised and payments it received. I consider the amount the Council is seeking is correct.
21. There was fault by the Council because it delayed sending invoices and pursuing recovery of Mr A’s outstanding charge between September 2019 and August 2023. This is a significant delay. However, I consider the injustice that this caused to Mr X, which was stress and frustration, has been remedied because the Council has apologised.
22. I note Mr X says the Council should not seek to recover the outstanding charges, because of the delay. However, the charges were for care Mr A received and the Council has a duty to seek payment.
23. The Council has taken appropriate steps to improve its invoicing for care charges.

Back to top

Final decision

24. There was fault by the Council, but it has already remedied the injustice. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman