Summary: Mrs X complained the Council provided conflicting and inaccurate information about whether her son, Mr S, would have to continue paying contributions towards his care and tenancy agreement after he returned home when the country went into lockdown in March 2020. The Council was at fault when it provided Mrs X with information which did not make clear which services would be reimbursed but this did not cause Mr S an injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council provided conflicting and inaccurate information about whether her son, Mr S, would have to continue to pay his contributions towards his care and tenancy agreement after he returned home when the country went into lockdown in March 2020 because of COVID-19.
2. Mrs X says that as a result, Mr S has made financial contributions to support he has not received which has financially disadvantaged him.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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”.
5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I spoke to Mrs X and considered her view of her complaint.
7. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided.
8. I gave Mrs X and the Council the chance to comment on my draft decision before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

9. Mr S’s condition means he has a care and support plan. Mr S lacks capacity which means he cannot make his own decisions about finances or the care and support he needs. Mrs X makes these decisions for him.
10. Mr S lived under a tenancy agreement in supported accommodation. He also received a support package for around 70 hours of care a week.
11. Mr S’s accommodation plus the support he needs whilst living there costs around £1,187 a week. His day care costs £367 a week. This means his support package costs a total of approximately £1,559 a week.
12. The Council financially assessed Mr S and determined he could afford to contribute around £117 a week towards the costs of his support package. The Council and the NHS pay the remaining amount.
13. In March 2020, the country went into lockdown because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Mrs X said Mr S had been self-isolating and was not coping well, so on 23 March, she removed him from his accommodation and he went back to live at home.
14. In April, Mrs X emailed the Council and said Mr S was still contributing towards his supported accommodation. She asked whether this would stop because he was now living at home.
15. The Council suspended Mr S’s charges and refunded his contributions from the date he went home. The Council wrote to Mrs X stating:

“Due to the current COVID-19 situation, we are reviewing the charges applied to customers that have had services suspended for the foreseeable service.

The Government has directed all care providers to be paid for services, in advance, which is happening at the time of writing. The Council will not however charge you for services that you haven’t been able to access due to the service being temporarily closed… Your charge has therefore been suspended from Monday 23rd March 2020. We will be monitoring this situation and will advise you when your charge is reinstated”.

16. Mr S returned to his supported accommodation on 1 June. The Council wrote to Mrs X and said that as a result, it had reinstated Mr S’s contributions towards his tenancy and support package.
17. On 1 July, Mrs X brought Mr S home again as he was not coping well with the lockdown.
18. On 8 September, Mr S began attending his day support five days a week whilst still living at home.
19. The Council wrote to Mrs X in September and said it would restart Mr S’s contributions from October because he was attending his day support.
20. Mrs X informed the Council Mr S would remain at home because his supported accommodation was still in lockdown which meant he would not be able to go to his day support if he returned. She said the Council told her it would cancel Mr S’s supported tenancy as he had left but she confirmed Mr S was only staying with her temporarily. The Council kept Mr S’s placement open.
21. In November, Mrs X asked the Council for a refund as Mr S was not living in his supported living. The Council responded and stated “The fnance manager has said unfortunately as the reconciliations are rolling across 12 months, some people may be asked to pay and get a refund at a later date”.
22. The Council then sent a second email which stated “Currently the council is asking customers like [Mr S] to still pay the social care charges even where they have not received services. A reconciliation will be paid back to customers. My understanding is the repayment will be at a later date. The payment of charges is needed in order to continue to pay... for the service which is still in place for [Mr S]. Also charges are required because of any other services [Mr S] may be receiving (eg [his day care])”.
23. The Council wrote to Mrs X again in January 2021. It stated “As [Mr S] has a tenancy at [the supported accommodation] (and is wishing to go back there soon) and as a consequence of the support he receives at the unit, he continues to incur costs as staff remain on-site. As with residential care, [Mr S] has to pay his contributions in order to keep his place open and cover the costs of his agreed care package”.
24. Mrs X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman. She believes Mr S’s contributions go towards his accommodation costs and the Council pays for his support package. She said that if she had known the Council would not reimburse Mr S, she would have given notice on his supported living accommodation. To date, Mr S still has his tenancy.

My findings

25. The Council’s communications with Mrs X in November 2020, whilst technically accurate, were confusing. They gave the impression the Council would reimburse Mr S the amount he paid in contributions. This impression was further strengthened by the fact the Council did reimburse Mr S for the previous period when he was living at home. However, that is not what the Council meant. What it meant was that those service users who had been unable to access a particular service might be reimbursed if they had contributed towards the costs of that service. The Council failed to specify which services it meant or provide sufficient clarity that it might not apply to Mr S. This is fault.
26. When we find fault, we try to put the person back in the position they would have been in if the fault had not occurred.
27. Mr S has a weekly personal budget of approximately £1,559. This means the cost of his complete care package, including his accommodation, costs that amount each week. The Council assessed Mr S as being able to contribute £117 towards the costs of this care package. This contribution does not pay for a specific part of the package, for example, his accommodation, but goes into the ‘general pot’. It also means that even if the cost of Mr S’s care package reduced, he would continue to contribute £117 until the cost of the care fell below that amount. At that point, his contributions would also reduce.
28. Mr S returned to his day care in September 2020 and the Council reinstated his contributions from October 2020. His tenancy also remained in place although Mr S was living at home. This meant there were associated costs which had to be paid whether Mr S was there or not. Even if Mrs X had given notice on Mr S’s supported accommodation, the costs of his weekly day care would have remained and Mr S would have had to contribute towards the first £117 of those costs. Therefore, Mr S did not experience an injustice because of the Council’s fault.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have completed my investigation. The Council was at fault but this did not cause Mr S or Mrs X an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman