Summary: Mr F complains about the Council’s billing for care services it provided his mother. The Council has now agreed to write off the charges. As the Ombudsman cannot achieve anything more for Mr F, we have discontinued our investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs E, is represented by her son, Mr F. They complain the Council:
• has not properly carried out its financial administration in relation to the care costs. There have been errors in calculating costs, assessing contributions, invoicing, taking payments, and communication. The Council continues to seek payments that conflict with the maximum payments outlined in the annual review statements.
• Claims payments have not been made, despite documentary evidence.
• Has not considered the poor level of care by a previous provider, when assessing what Mrs E owed.
• Has illegally sought to pursue Mr F for the debt.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr F;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered its response;
• spoken to Mr F;
• sent an earlier draft decision. In response to Mr F’s comments I made further enquiries. I send a revised draft decision to Mr F and the Council and considered the responses I received.

Back to top

What I found

5. The 2014 Care Act introduced a single framework for assessment and support planning. Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 require local authorities to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support.
6. Councils can make charges for care and support services they provide or arrange. Charges are based on a notional maximum disposable income, which is based on:
• an amount for day-to-day living expenses. This is the same as the allowances for Income Support or Pension Credit;
• a “buffer” equal to 25% of the basic Pension Credit figure;
• housing costs;
• disability related expenses.

What happened

7. Mrs E is in her late 80s. At the time the complaint relates to, she lived at home. She has mixed dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. Mr F deals with her finances.
8. The Council had been providing Mrs E with a small package of care. Its charge for this was £38 per week. As this was below the £58.80 maximum amount it had assessed she should pay, she met the full cost of this care.
9. In January 2015 Mr F asked the Council to increase the package of care it provided to Mrs E. This increased the cost of care to £107.10 each week. So Ms E’s charges increased to the maximum assessed costs of £58.80 each week. In April this increased to £61.85 a week. Mr F says the Council did not tell them about the increased charges at the time. The Council has not sent me a copy of a letter telling Mr F or Mrs E of the January 2016 increase.
10. There was an issue in 2016 when the Council was not collecting enough to meet its charges, as it had not asked to increase Mrs E’s direct debit payment. So it took a lump sum payment to meet the shortfall. But it later refunded that payment to Mrs E. The Council now says it did this on the understanding Mr F would set up a repayment plan, although I cannot see any record of this understanding in the Council’s records.
11. From around August 2016 Mr F cancelled the direct debit. In its place he set up a standing order. But the standing order payment did not meet the cost of the package of care the Council was providing. So the amount Mrs E owed continued to increase.
12. In March 2017 Mr F emailed the Council disputing the outstanding charges. The Council recognises that since March 2017 Mr F has been making payments that largely meet the costs of the care it is providing Mrs E.
13. In January 2018 the Council emailed Mr F. He responded noting it had not responded to his March 2017 email. He asked for copies of invoices and statements. The Council responded to advise its view was it had correctly followed process. Mr F responded to advise his understanding in 2015 was the Council was funding Mrs E’s care increase. And if they were advised otherwise then, they would not have agreed to the increase.
14. The Council continued to respond to Mr F, enclosing statements. It also sent him a final notice for the debt. Mr F complains this and later demands were addressed to him. The Council advises me this final notice and later ones were automatically generated. And that it has not taken any further enforcement action for the debt.
15. In April 2018 Mr F complained. The Council’s response explained what had happened with the increase in charges. In response to later correspondence from Mr F, it advised it would not agree to his request to write off the debt.
16. Mr F continued in correspondence with the Council about the disputed charge. In December 2018 he complained to the Ombudsman.
17. In response to my enquiries, the Council advised that after reviewing the file, it had decided to not seek repayment of the £1641.22 outstanding from 2015/16. Its view was there was evidence it had correctly made the charges. But it would not seek repayment, due to the time that had passed and that its communication had not always been clear. It said it hoped “…this gesture of goodwill is accepted in the spirit of resolution”.

Analysis

18. Mr F made his complaint about the 2015 increased charges late to the Ombudsman. But I used my discretion to investigate, due to concerns the Council did not tell Mr F about the increases at the time or in the years that followed. I was also unclear from the Council’s first responses why the charges increased.
19. In its responses the Council explained why the charges happened. Its view remains it properly made the charges. But it accepts some unclear communication. So, as a gesture of goodwill, it has decided not to seek repayment of the charges. As this is a response that seems likely to be more than anything the Ombudsman would recommend if we investigated further, my view is I should discontinue my investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I have discontinued my investigation as the Council has made an offer that means there is not enough injustice for the Ombudsman to investigate further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman