Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council charging her mother for care and support which was not needed. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council charging her mother for care and support which was not needed.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In March 2023, Mrs X’s mother received a care package which consisted of three daily calls. One hour in the morning, one 30 minutes call at lunchtime, and one 30 minute call at teatime.
6. On 8 April 2023, Mrs X asked the Council to cancel the lunch and teatime calls, and to reduce the morning call to 30 minutes.
7. The Council did not suspend the lunch and teatime calls until 21 April. It then only reduced the morning call to 30 minutes in May 2024, following a care plan review. In its complaint response, the Council accepted the earliest it could have actioned the request was 11 April.
8. If we were to investigate, it is likely we would find fault. This is because the Council accepted there was a delay in the Council actioning Mrs X’s request for care to be reduced. I am satisfied the Council should have actioned Mrs X’s request by 11 April.
9. The Council offered to reduce the care hours charged by six and a half hours. However, it is unclear how the Council reached this figure. According to my calculations, the Council should reduce the charges by 31 hours. I have worked this out as follows:
• The Council cancelled the 2x30 minutes calls on 21 April. This should have been done on 11 April. This is a delay of 10 days. 2x30 minute calls per day means it is one hour of care each day that was provided that would not have been if the fault had not occurred. A total of 10 hours.
• The Council agreed to reduce the morning calls to 30 minutes on 23 May. This should have been done on 11 April. This is a delay of 42 days. Therefore, 30 minutes extra care was provided each day which would not have been if the fault had not occurred. A total of 21 hours.
10. We therefore asked the Council to consider remedying this by apologising and reducing Mrs X’s mother’s care bill by 31 hours. If the Council has already reduced the care bill six and a half hours, then a further 24.5 hours should be reduced. The Council is to issue a new invoice to Mrs X which sets out the remaining charges still owed (if any). If a refund is due, the Council should issue the refund.

Back to top

Agreed action

11. To its credit, the Council agreed to resolve the complaint and will complete the above within four weeks of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We have upheld this complaint because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman