Kent County Council (20 008 020)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: Mr X complained the Council charged him for a period of reablement care it should not have charged him for after he was discharged from hospital. The Council accepted it did not make it clear to Mr X which care he would need to pay for and agreed to refund the care charges he disputed. We were satisfied this remedied the injustice to Mr X so we completed our investigation.
The complaint
- Mr X complained the Council charged him for a period of reablement care, between 30 July and 10 September 2020, it should not have charged him for. He said the Council did not tell him it would charge him after the hospital told him the care would be free. He wanted the Council to refund the money he has paid.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
- If we are satisfied with a council’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)
- This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the Council followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Good Administrative Practice during the response to COVID-19”.
How I considered this complaint
- I considered the information Mr X provided and discussed the complaint with him.
- I considered the Council’s comments on the complaint.
- Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.
What I found
What happened
- Mr X was discharged from hospital in late July 2020. Before discharging him, the hospital referred Mr X for reablement care and it told him this would be free for the first six weeks. However, the Council charged Mr X for this care.
- Mr X’s wife, Mrs X, complained to the Council about the charges. She told the Council both she and Mr X were told the care should have been free.
- The Council investigated and refunded the first four weeks’ charges because these should have been free under COVID-19 funding arrangements. However, it did not refund the final two weeks.
- Mr X complained to the Ombudsman that the hospital told him the care would be free and the Council had never told him, or his wife, that this was wrong.
The Council’s response to my enquiries
- In response to my enquiries, the Council accepted it did not make it clear to Mr X that he would need to pay for some of his care following discharge from hospital. It also accepted it had missed the opportunity to refund the charges when it considered Mrs X’s complaint.
- The Council proposed to refund Mr X’s charges for the two disputed weeks and intends to offer Mr X another financial assessment to ensure the contributions to his current care costs are correct.
My findings
- The Council accepted it did not make the charges clear to Mr X and has offered to refund the disputed charges. I am satisfied this is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.
Agreed action
- Within one month of my final decision the Council will refund the two weeks’ care charges which Mr X disputes, in line with its offer, and apologise to Mr X.
Final decision
- I uphold Mr X’s complaint and have completed my investigation. The Council accepted it did not make it clear to Mr X which care he would need to pay for and agreed to refund the care charges he disputed. I am satisfied this remedies the injustice to Mr X.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman