Summary: Mr B complained that the Council had sent him invoices for dates when a service had not been provided and he said the invoices were confusing and lacked transparency. The Council has already upheld Mr B’s complaint and we agree there was fault. The Council has agreed to pay a symbolic financial remedy and carry out a service improvement.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains on behalf of his son, Mr D, who lacks the mental capacity to make the complaint.
2. He says the Council has repeatedly charged Mr D for services he did not receive. He says the Council’s invoices and charging system is confusing and lacks clarity.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have discussed the complaint with Mr B. I have considered the evidence that he and the Council have provided, the relevant law, policy and guidance and both sides’ comments on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law, guidance and policies

6. The Care Act 2014, the Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2014 and the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 set out the Council’s duties towards adults who require care and support and its powers to charge. The Council also has its own policies.
7. The Council has a duty to assess adults who have a need for care and support. If the needs assessment identifies eligible needs, the Council will provide a support plan which outlines what services are required to meet the needs and a personal budget which sets out the costs to meet the needs.
8. Councils must carry out a financial assessment if they decide to charge for the care and support. Councils’ financial assessments can take a person’s income and capital into consideration, but not the value of their home. After charging, a person’s income must not reduce below a weekly amount known as the minimum income guarantee (MIG). This is set by national government and reviewed each year.
9. One of the principles of charging is that charging should be clear and transparent, so people know what they will be charged.

What happened

10. Mr D is an adult man who has a learning disability and autism. He lives with his parents. Mr D has a support package from the Council and attends college 1 day a week and a work placement four days a week. The care package is funded by the Council with a contribution from Mr D, which, at the time, was £83.30 per week.
11. Mr B complained to the Council in December 2024 and said:
• Mr B had informed the Council and the work placement that Mr D would be away from 21 September to 5 October (two weeks) so he should not be charged during that time. He was not booked to attend college during that time. Mr B had given a week’s notice of the non-attendance, but the Council had still charged Mr D.
• Mr D would not attend over the Christmas period and Mr B hoped that the same problem would not occur again.
12. The Council responded on 7 January 2025 and upheld Mr B’s complaint. The Council said:
• Mr D had been charged incorrectly as the care providers had provided attendance records for the time that Mr D did not attend. The Council had also not taken the correct action and this was compounded by the officer from the Council’s Payments team, who was dealing with Mr D’s account, being on sick leave.
• The Council agreed to credit £166 (two weeks’ contribution) to Mr D’s account and this amendment would show up on his next invoice.
• The Council would ensure that the same problem did not occur again for the period in December.
13. The Council carried out its yearly financial assessment of Mr D in January 2025 and this resulted in a reduction of his weekly contribution from £83.30 to £67.38. The Council backdated this amount to 1 June 2024 and said Mr D’s contribution was £67.38 from 1 June to 20 December 2024 and then reduced it to £63.30 from 21 December 2024 onwards. This meant that Mr D was entitled to a refund for the weeks from 1 June 2024 onwards when he had been paying £83.30 per week.
14. Mr B complained in February 2025 and said:
• The Council had made further errors in its reimbursement for the upheld complaint and in its charging.
• Mr D had received a reimbursement for the week commencing 21 September 2024 but also received a credit and a debit for the week commencing 5 October 2024 when Mr D attended the providers’ facilities.
• Mr B had told the Council that Mr D would be away from 28 December to 3 January 2025 (1 week), but the Council had still charged him. The Council had made the same mistake as it had previously made.
• During the week of 4 January 2025 Mr D attended only 2 sessions, but the invoice showed that he was charged for 4 sessions during that week.
15. The Council responded on 12 March 2025 and upheld the complaint. It said:
• The Council had made errors in the charges applied to Mr D’s invoices since October 2024 and further mistakes in the rectification of the errors.
• The Council had not properly communicated how it would apply the readjustments to Mr D’s account.
• Mr D was incorrectly charged for the week from 28 December 2024 when he was away.
• Mr D was correctly charged for the week commencing 4 January 2025 as the charge for two sessions was higher than the cost of Mr D’s contribution (£63.30).
16. The Council said Mr B had asked the Council to provide a correct invoice from 1 June 2024 to the present. The Council attached an invoice dated 10 March 2025 which, it said, listed the correct charges from 18 May 2024 to 18 January 2025 which totalled £2,175.76. The Council did not charge Mr D for the two weeks commencing 21 September and 21 December 2024. Mr D had paid £2,406.25 during this time so Mr D had overpaid £230.49 which was a credit on the account.
17. The Council said it would issue an invoice on 14 March 2025 for £261.64 which it said covered the four weeks from 25 January 2025 but it would offset the credit of £230.49 so Mr D only had to pay £31.15.
18. The Council said it had taken the following actions resulting from Mr B’s complaint. It had:
• Provided further training to the care provider on the information it had to provide to the Council.
• Reminded the Council’s finance officers of the processes to follow when rectifying invoices and how the rectifications should be communicated to residents.
19. The Council issued the invoice dated 14 March 2025 and the total showing on the invoice was £253.20 (weekly contribution of £63.30 x4).
20. Mr and Mrs B contacted the Council on 17 March 2025 to query why the Council had sent the 14 March 2025 invoice as this did not match what the complaint response had said. The Council responded and said the complaint response should have said that the invoice would be for £253.20 (not £261.64) so Mr D only had to pay £22.71. The Council then waived the charge of £22.71 as a goodwill gesture so there was no balance to pay in March 2025.
21. In June 2025 Mr B made his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said:
• The Council had upheld his complaint but the problems with the invoices continued and the Council had, yet again, charged Mr D for the week starting on 3 May 2025 when he did not attend.
• There was still a lack of transparency in the invoices, for example the unit price did not reflect the real cost of the service and did not relate to the amount of sessions attended.
• The invoice included a statement which said: ‘This invoice may not reflect the total balance due on your account. Account statements are available upon request.’ The balance could only be obtained by ringing the Council. Mr B said clients should have access to the information online, showing the transactions and the balance.
22. On 12 June 2025, the Council issued two credit notes of £65.18 for the week starting on 3 May 2025.
23. The Council replied to the Ombudsman and provided further comments. It said:
• It had upheld Mr B’s complaint fully and had apologised. It had provided credits for all the times when Mr D had been invoiced incorrectly.
• It had applied a duplicate credit amount of £65.18 to Mr D’s account in error but this was not reclaimed as it was the Council’s error.
• The Council offered Mr B £100 in recognition of his time and inconvenience.
24. The Council said it had made the following changes to its practice because of Mr B’s complaint:
• The Council had introduced more timely follow up on assigned tasks (for example, when an officer was given notice of future non-attendance) and these were monitored by the team leader. The Council had introduced a new task on its systems which staff had to set when a service user gave notice that they would not be using the service to ensure that this was monitored.
• The introduction of new telephone software to monitor and record calls.
• Implementation of holiday notification process.
• The Council had provided refresher training to Payments team staff on handling customer queries and response times.
• The Council had provided training to the provider to ensure the correct information was provided.
• The Council was undertaking a project with its Corporate Debt Team and its system software developer which would provide a cumulative balance and amount outstanding on the account which should provide more clarity.
25. I asked the Council whether the client would be able to access the account online. The Council said clients would not be able to see the account online but the Council would probably send out a statement of account twice a year. This would show the credits and debits and the account balance.
26. Mr B said the Council had sent him credit notes for Mr D’s account but he was not sure whether this credit had been applied to Mr D’s account. So I asked the Council why it did not simply deduct the credit (on the account) from the next invoice and produce a lower invoice. The Council said it could not amend the invoice so this resulted in the credit remaining on the account but customers were told verbally not to pay the next invoice in full but to only pay the amount shown on the invoice minus the credit.

Analysis

27. The Council has already upheld Mr B’s complaint that the Council charged Mr D for times when he did not attend. I accept that errors can happen but, in Mr D’s case the Council made the same error (charging for dates when Mr D did not attend) three times, despite being told on each occasion that Mr D would not attend and despite having been alerted to this error the first time via the complaint.
28. These errors were fault and it is concerning that they happened repeatedly.
29. Mr B’s second complaint relates to the lack of clarity in the invoices and I agree that there is fault in that respect.
30. I appreciate that it will always be difficult to have the clarity in the invoices that Mr B wants. The contribution is determined by a person’s income, not by the cost of the service or the amount of hours provided. It is set at the financial assessment review each year. The contribution is not affected by the service provision unless the real cost of the service is lower than the contribution.
31. And I agree that the Council’s invoice has to include information on what actual sessions have been delivered so that clients can doublecheck that they are not paying for dates when no service was delivered which happened in Mr D’s case. Therefore, the invoices will always be slightly confusing as they say how many sessions have been provided but this does not (in most cases) affect the contribution requested.
32. However, I agree that the Council’s invoices are confusing and lack the transparency that the CASS Guidance recommends. The most confusing aspect is the fact that, when there is a credit on the account, the Council does not deduct this credit from the next invoice but sends an invoice for the full amount and then tells clients to ignore the invoice and deduct the credit. It appears contradictory for the Council to issue an invoice which does not reflect the actual debt owed and then to tell clients not to pay that invoice but to pay a smaller amount.
33. Clients can also not tell what credits or debits are on their account or what the current balance is which adds to the lack of clarity

Remedy

34. When the Ombudsman finds fault, we consider whether the person has suffered an injustice resulting from the fault and, if so, whether that can be remedied. The Council has already remedied Mr D’s injustice as it has reimbursed him for the invoices when he did not receive a service. I note the Council has also written off small amounts where it (wrongly) provided Mr D with too much credit.
35. I appreciate that Mr B has suffered his own injustice in terms of the stress and inconvenience of having to repeatedly complain to the Council and point out further mistakes. In cases such as this one, where there is no direct financial injustice, the Ombudsman can recommend a small symbolic sum to reflect the distress. The Council has offered to pay Mr B £100 and I agree that this sum is in line with a remedy the Ombudsman would recommend.
36. I note that the Council had already implemented service improvements to reduce the risk of the errors in the invoices occurring again. I note that training has been provided to the provider and the relevant staff and changes have been made to the Council’s internal system to ensure that staff are able to set an alert when they have been given notice of future non-attendance and that managers will monitor this. This should address the errors that were made in the invoices and I do not recommend any further service improvements in that respect.
37. There is also the wider issue of the lack of transparency in the invoices. I note that the Council is changing its systems and plans to send a statement of account twice a year which would address some of the issues Mr B had identified. However, the Council should consider whether it can be more transparent on the invoice and apply a credit on the account to the next invoice which results in a lower invoice so I have added this as a recommended action.

Back to top

Action

38. The Council has already upheld the complaint, apologised for the fault and carried out service improvements. The Council has agreed to take the following actions within one month of the final decision. It will:
• Pay Mr B £100.
• Consider making its invoices clearer by applying adding any credit (on the account) to the invoice which then reduces the net amount to be paid.

Back to top

Decision

39. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed the remedy to address the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman