Summary: There was fault on the part of the Council in the way it communicated the care charges to Ms B using the wrong email address. As a result, she thought the invoice had been cancelled. The care charges remain due for payment, but the Council should remedy the injustice to Ms B by apologising, implementing an instalment plan and making a payment to her recognising the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms B (the complainant) complains about the way the Council invoiced her for charges for her late father’s care. The Council emailed her with a statement implying the charges were cancelled and then used the wrong email address to issue further statements. She received the correct bill while her father (Mr K) was ill in hospital shortly before his death.

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. 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 Ms B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Ms 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

6. The Care Act 2014 (section 14 and 17) provides a legal framework for charging for care and support. It enables a council to decide whether to charge a person when it is arranging to meet their care and support needs, or a carer’s support needs. The charging rules for residential care are set out in the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 and councils should have regard to the Care and Support Statutory Guidance.
7. When the Council arranges a care home placement, it must follow the regulations when undertaking a financial assessment to decide how much a person must pay towards the cost of their residential care.
8. The financial limit, known as the ‘upper capital limit’, exists for the purposes of the financial assessment. This sets out at what point a person can get council support to meet their eligible needs. People who have over the upper capital limit must pay the full cost of their residential care home fees. Once their capital has reduced to less than the upper capital limit, they only have to pay an assessed contribution towards their fees.

What happened

9. Mr K was resident in a care home, with his care funded by the Council and by his own contributions. Ms B managed his financial contributions.
10. In October 2024 the Council sent an invoice for Mr B’s care (since February 2024) for £8,395. Ms B queried the bill. In November the Council sent a further bill. The top lines read:

“ACCOMMODATION CHARGES - LONG TERM/TEMP 1 -1,930.36 0.00 -1,930.36

Cancelled amounts to 16-06 (the care home) RESIDENTIAL

ACCOMMODATION CHARGES - LONG TERM/TEMP 1 -6,465.55 0.00 -6,465.55

Cancelled amounts to 13-10 (the care home) RESIDENTIAL”

The total amount due for payment was stated as £1672. Ms B paid that amount on 12 November.

11. In June 2025, when Mr K was in hospital, the Council contacted Ms B again for payments including the £8395 which she thought had been cancelled, but Ms B says this was after she had queried her mother’s bill.
12. Mr K died in July 2025 in hospital.
13. Ms B complained to the Council about the invoices she had received and said there had been no contact from the Council between October 2024 and July 2025.
14. The Council replied in September. It said “Following a decision from DWP with regards to [Mr K’s] Pension Credit a review took place on 22-10-2024 and the outcome was communicated via email”. The Council also said “On 05-11-2024 invoice 910567084 was produced totalling £1672.08. Following this invoice colleagues … issued a statement of account on 06-11-2024 and confirmed the balance due between 18-05-2024 to 10-11-2024 was £10,067.99.”
15. Ms B was unhappy with the Council’s response and queried the invoices which said the charges had been cancelled. The Council replied again saying the charges had not been cancelled and it did not uphold her complaint.
16. Ms B complained to the Ombudsman. She said the emails which the Council sent to her in November had gone to the wrong address because of an error in the email address it had used for her. She said the Council’s communication had been poor and the late demand for over £10,000 after her father’s death had caused her considerable stress, anxiety and exacerbation of a physical health condition.
17. The Council says the invoice it sent in October “shows cancelled charges because the original charges were removed and replaced with revised charges based on the reassessment. This is a standard process and resulted in a balance due of £1,672.08. The invoice does not show that the earlier balance of £8,385 had been paid; it simply reflects the reassessment of charges.”
18. The Council says a revised account and statement was issued by email on 6 November showing the balance due was now £10,067. However, it says that “unfortunately, due to human error” that email was sent to the wrong email address.
19. The Council says it did not contact Ms B again as the balance was received on 12 November. However, the documents the Council have produced in connection with that statement refer to charges for the care of Ms B’s mother, not her father.
20. Ms B says the Council has not apologized to her for the errors it made in sending emails to the incorrect address, or implying in its statements that a charge when cancelled when it was not.

Analysis

21. There was clearly fault in the way the Council communicated with Ms B. It addressed important emails to her incorrectly. It failed to follow up the non-payment of the monies it said were due for nine months. When it did so Mr K was in hospital and Ms B was under a considerable amount of stress already.
22. The Council did not explain its reference to cancelled charges in its invoice of 5 November. There was no accompanying letter saying the charges were revised as a result of the DWP assessment and were not cancelled. The invoice which explained that was the email which went to the wrong address. It is not surprising in the circumstances that Ms B understood from the term “cancelled charges” that the charges had in fact been cancelled.
23. Mr K received the care for which the charges were incurred and there is no reason to waive the charges. However, the Council should take steps to remedy the injustice which its actions have caused for Ms B.

Back to top

Action

24. Within one month of my final decision the Council will apologise to Ms B. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended. 
25. Within one month of my final decision the Council will also set out a realistic instalment plan for payment of the outstanding charges together with a clear explanation of how the charges were incurred.
26. Within one month of my final decision the Council will offer Ms B the sum of £500 in recognition of the distress its actions caused her at a difficult time. It will also offer a further £250 to recognise its poor communication and failure to apologise properly for its use of an incorrect email address which caused such delay.
27. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

28. I find fault causing injustice, which will be remedied by completion of the recommendations at paragraphs 24-26.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman