Summary: there was fault by Bury Metropolitan Borough Council in that it delayed refunding payments for overcharged domiciliary care. This caused injustice. The Council will take the action agreed to recognise this and to ensure such problems do not recur.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, says the Council delayed in taking action to resolve incorrect charges made for domiciliary care for his elderly parent.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them.
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I discussed the complaint with Mr B and considered the written information he provided with his complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered all the information before reaching a draft decision.
6. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. In November 2021 Mr B complained to the care agency providing his mother’s care. He said staff had acted rudely towards him and that carers had failed to turn up to provide her care. He also said that hours were incorrectly invoiced when only one carer turned up but two were charged for, and carers didn’t arrive at all or they arrived at the wrong time and were consequently sent away. He followed this complaint up in December and January 2022 but did not get a substantive response.
8. As the Council commissions the care on his mother’s behalf, Mr B escalated his complaint to the Council in January 2022. He said:
• on occasions one person arrived to provide care when two should have been provided;
• carers sometimes turned up at the wrong time and did not stay for the correct period of time;
• invoices submitted for care did not always match what has been provided in terms of the hours of care and number of carers provided; and
• complaints had already submitted about this in November and December 2021 had not been properly responded to.
9. The Council provided its response in early February 2022. The Council officer who provided the response confirmed s/he had spoken to the regional director of the care provider to put together the complaint response. The response stated:
• with regard to one member of staff arriving when two should have been provided the Council said its care providers had struggled to meet staffing requirements during the Covid-19 pandemic due to unplanned staff absences and this had sometimes meant that visits were changed with little notice. The Council said the care agency accepted its communication about this with service users had been poor but that they would, in future, try to improve this and would ensure service users safety and welfare was paramount;
• all visits to customers were monitored using Electronic Call Monitoring (ECM) which provides accurate, real-time information about the start, end and length of each service visit, the continuity of care provided, and whether service visits have been missed. The Council said it uses the information provided from ECM systems to charge customers and pay providers; and
• Mr B should provide details of incorrect hours and incorrect charging so it could investigate that further.
10. Mr B responded with information about which visits had been charged for when staff had not attended or only one carer had attended when invoices had wrongly charged for two. He confirmed the invoices had been paid and asked that either overpayments were accounted for in future invoices or that he was reimbursed.
11. Later in February the Council confirmed the care agency would credit the Council with the amount Mr B had already paid for two visits that did not go ahead in October and November 2021 and that two further credits would be made to reflect the overcharge for visits in November 2021 and January 2022 when one carer had visited but a charge had been made for two. The Council said it would in turn deduct the amount of these from future bills to Mr B.
12. Mr B responded by saying he would not be paying any future invoices until these deductions were made on a new invoice. Having unsuccessfully chased these deductions or repayments with the Council many times and been given a number of unclear payment statements and invoices, Mr B complained to the Ombudsman.
13. During March and April the Council liaised with the care agency to ensure the correct amount was credited to it.
14. The Council says replacement invoices and a credit note for the amount owed were then issued to Mr B in May 2022. Mr B has confirmed this to me and provided a copy of the Statement the Council issued to him confirming this. Mr B is happy that this has resolved the matter so that the correct charges and payments have now been made but remains frustrated that he has had to repeatedly chase the Council to resolve this.
15. The Council says that from May 2022 it introduced a new finance and payment system that will ensure that problems such as that experienced by Mr B will not recur in future.

Was the Council at fault and did this cause injustice?

16. There was fault by the Council in the form of avoidable delay in resolving the overpayment and repayment of this. Mr B started pursuing this with the care agency the Council had commissioned in late 2021. After he escalated the matter to the Council, it agreed to resolve the matter in February 2022 but did not do so until May 2022. This delay has caused Mr B injustice in the form of avoidable frustration and uncertainty. In addition, Mr B has been put to avoidable time and trouble both in having to repeatedly pursue the Council and complain to this office.

Back to top

Agreed action

17. When recommending a remedy we seek to remedy the injustice caused as a result of identified fault. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies states:
• for injustice such as avoidable distress we usually recommend a symbolic payment to acknowledge the impact of the fault as we cannot put the complainant in the position they would have been had the fault not occurred;
• distress can include uncertainty and frustration;
• where a complainant incurs time and trouble above what would be considered usual when bringing a complaint we may recommend a payment to acknowledge this.
18. To recognise the injustice caused the Council will, within one month of the final decision on this complaint:
• send Mr B a written apology;
• pay Mr B £100 to recognise the avoidable frustration and uncertainty; and
• pay a further £100 to recognise the avoidable time and trouble caused to Mr B.
19. The Council says it has introduced a new finance and payment system that will ensure that problems such as that experienced by Mr B will not recur in future. Within three months of the final decision on this complaint the Council will provide us with further details of this and say how this new system will ensure such problems will not recur.

Back to top

Final decision

20. There was fault by the Council in its handling of refunding payments made for overcharged care. This caused Mr B injustice. The Council will take the agreed action to recognise this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman