Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his grandmother, Mrs X, that the Council gave incorrect advice and wrongly charged for her care. Mrs X was overcharged because the Council failed to action a request to cancel visits. During the investigation, the Council accepted fault, apologised, applied a credit of £367.64 to Mrs X's account, issued a revised invoice and reminded staff to clearly explain financial assessments, care package implementation and charging arrangements before care begins. I am satisfied these actions provide a suitable remedy for the injustice caused and make no further recommendations.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained on behalf of his grandmother, Mrs X, that the Council gave incorrect information about care charges and wrongly charged Mrs X for care after he asked for some visits to be cancelled. He said this caused avoidable financial loss, distress, frustration and time and trouble pursuing 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. 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)
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation and guidance

Charging for social care services: the power to charge

6. 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)
7. Where a council has decided to charge for care, it must carry out a financial assessment to decide what a person can afford to pay. It must then give the person a written record of the completed assessment. A council must treat each person individually. A council must not charge more than the cost it incurs to meet a person’s assessed eligible needs. (Care Act 2014)

What happened

8. Mr X was injured in May 2025 and was temporarily unable to provide his usual care and support to his grandmother, Mrs X. The Council completed a care assessment and arranged a temporary domiciliary care package.
9. Mr X signed the Council's consent documentation in mid-May 2025. The declaration confirmed Mrs X may have to contribute towards the cost of her care following a financial assessment and that any assessed contribution would apply from the start date of the care package.
10. The care package started in mid-May 2025. The Council completed a financial assessment in July 2025 and assessed Mrs X to contribute £139.04 per week towards the cost of her care from the start of the package.
11. The Council issued an invoice for the care provided. Mr X complained the Council told him charges would not apply until the financial assessment had been completed. He also said Mrs X had been charged for two daily care visits when only one daily visit should have been charged for part of the care package.
12. The Council did not uphold the complaint.
13. The Council reviewed Mrs X's account during this investigation and credited her account. It explained Mrs X should not have been charged the full cost of two daily visits but her financially assessed maximum weekly contribution for one visit. It therefore recalculated the charges to reflect the cost of one daily visit for the relevant period.
14. Mr X was given several opportunities to comment on the Council's revised position but did not provide any further comments.

Analysis and findings

15. Mr X said the Council told him Mrs X would not be charged for her care until a financial assessment had been completed. The Council said it explained that any assessed contribution would apply from the start of the care package.
16. The evidence shows Mr X signed the Council's declaration on in mid-May 2025 confirming his understanding that Mrs X may have to contribute towards the cost of her care following a financial assessment and that any assessed contribution would apply from the start date of the service. While Mr X recalls receiving different verbal advice, there is no independent evidence to support this. It is reasonable to conclude this was a misunderstanding. There is no fault found in the way the Council informed Mr X and Mrs X about care charges.
17. Mr X also complained about Mrs X being incorrectly charged for her care package.
18. The evidence shows the Council commissioned two care visits each day while Mr X recovered from his injury. The provider carried out two daily visits between 14 and 20 May 2025, except on 18 May when a visit was cancelled. Mr X contacted the Council on 20 May 2025 and asked for the teatime visits to be cancelled. The Council accepted its call handler did not pass this request to the allocated social worker. As a result, the care package was not amended and Mrs X continued to be charged for two daily visits when she should not have been.
19. During our investigation, the Council reviewed Mrs X's account and accepted the charges should be amended. It appropriately apologised for its error and explained the charges for the week commencing 12 May 2025 were correct because two daily visits were provided. It also accepted the charges for the week commencing 19 May 2025 should be reduced to reflect Mr X's request to cancel the teatime visits on 20 May 2025. For the remaining weeks of the care package, the Council accepted Mrs X should have been charged for one daily visit rather than two. This reduced the total charge from £1,146.32 to £778.68.
20. The Council also explained why the revised credit differed from the amount Mr X expected. Mr X assumed Mrs X had been charged the full cost of two daily visits. However, Mrs X was not charged the full weekly cost of two daily visits, which was £173.04. Her financial assessment limited her charge to £139.04 a week. The correct charge for one daily visit was £86.52 a week. The Council therefore calculated the credit as the difference between £139.04 and £86.52 for each relevant full week, rather than simply halving the amount originally invoiced.
21. There is no evidence to suggest the recalculated charges are incorrect.
22. The Council was at fault because it failed to action Mr X's request to cancel the teatime visits. This resulted in Mrs X being overcharged for her care. During the investigation, the Council reviewed the account, corrected the charging calculation and applied the appropriate credit. I am satisfied the Council has taken suitable action to remedy the injustice and therefore make no further recommendations.

Back to top

Decision

23. I find fault causing injustice. The Council completed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman