Summary: The Council’s commissioned care provider Medacs was at fault in the way it calculated the numbers of care hours it delivered, and as a result Mrs K (and other service users) were overcharged for their care. The overpayments have now been re-credited. The Council agrees to make a further payment to recognise the distress caused at the time and by a delay in resolving the matter.

The complaint

1. Mrs B (the complainant) complains about the way Mrs K (her elderly mother) and many other service-users were affected financially by an error on the part of the company Medacs which delivered their home care on behalf of the Council. She says as a result she was caused considerable time and trouble pursuing the repayment and the complaint.

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 recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. Part 3 and Part 3A of the Local Government Act 1974 give us our powers to investigate adult social care complaints. Part 3 is for complaints where local councils provide services themselves. It also applies where a council arranges or commissions care services from a provider, even if the council charges the person receiving the care. In these cases, we treat the provider’s actions as if they were council actions.
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)
5. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mrs B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance. I spoke to Mrs B.
7. Mrs B 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

Relevant law and guidance

8. A council has a duty to arrange care and support for those with eligible needs, and a power to meet both eligible and non-eligible needs in places other than care homes. A council can choose to charge for non-residential care following a person’s needs assessment. Where it decides to charge, the council must follow the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 and have regard to the Care Act statutory guidance. (Care Act 2014, section 14 and 17). Someone with over £23,250 in capital will be classed as able to afford the full cost of their care.

What happened

9. Mrs K was assessed as needing a package of home care following a discharge from an assessment residential placement. The care package arranged by the Council and provided by Medacs was for four care calls a day of between 15 minutes (lunch, teatime, bedtime) and 30 minutes (morning). The morning call was later reduced in time. Mrs K was a full cost payer.
10. From April 2024 onwards Mrs B (who has power of attorney for Mrs K’s finances) started raising concerns first with the care provider and then with the Council about incorrect charges for the care Mrs K received. She said in January to March 2024 Mrs K had been charged for 115.25 hours instead of 84 hours.
11. The Council agreed there was an overcharge. It contacted the care provider on several occasions to seek to resolve the issue. Mrs B says she continued to receive reminders for unpaid invoices while she was disputing the amounts requested, and even while the Council was investigating.
12. In February 2025 the Council wrote to Mrs B. It said it had completed an initial investigation following her complaint but said it had not yet been able to fully resolve the matter. It said, “Medacs have not met the expectations of Trafford Council with regards to submitting care charges for commissioned homecare on behalf of Trafford Council. The above errors could have been avoided by ensuring the weekly charges were amended to update the account.”
13. In July the Council wrote to Mrs B again. It said all credits had now been processed to update the account. It said the reason for the errors were threefold:

Medacs did not update its system when the morning call was reduced;

“During September 2024, Medacs uploaded the number of care visits per week instead of commissioned care hours resulting in over 50 service users being overcharged for commissioned homecare. All of those affected, were credited back the overcharge”;

The care provider had not amended its records when Mrs K was admitted to hospital in December.

14. The Council apologised for the delays and poor communication with the care provider.
15. In September Mrs B complained to the Ombudsman. She complained that it had taken over a year for the Council to resolve the matter and she had just been told there was still a credit outstanding to Mrs K’s account. She said the whole episode had been time-consuming and stressful for her as the person in charge of her mother’s finances.
16. In November 2025 Mrs B was able to settle the outstanding payments due and says the concerns about her mother’s account are now resolved. She points out that very many other service-users apart from Mrs K were affected by the way Medacs had miscalculated their charges.

Analysis

17. The Council acknowledges there was a fault in the actions of its commissioned care provider in the way it calculated charges for care. As commissioner the Council remains responsible for those actions and this was therefore fault on the part of the Council which caused injustice to Mrs K and to a significant number of other service-users in its area.
18. It took too long for the Council to investigate the complaint and resolve the matter to the point where Mrs K’s account was credited with the overpayments which had been incorrectly requested. That was fault which caused stress and uncertainty for Mrs B.

Back to top

Action

19. The Council has already apologised to Mrs B for its failings here.
20. Within one month of my final decision, it will also offer her £500 in recognition of the uncertainty over a long period of time, and the distress of being unable to resolve her mother’s finances and receiving additional invoices.
21. Within one month of my final decision the Council will also detail for me the steps it has put in place to improve monitoring of this care provider’s systems and processes to avoid a recurrence.
22. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman