Summary: The complaint is about charges for Ms B’s care. There was fault in the Council’s financial assessment and invoicing. This caused her avoidable distress and inconvenience. To remedy the injustice, the Council will waive some of the charge and apologise.

The complaint

1. Mr A complains for Ms B that Herefordshire Council (the Council):
1. delayed in carrying out a financial assessment and did not invoice Ms B for her care charges for six months. This led to arrears building up and caused Ms B avoidable distress;
2. did not send Ms B information to set up a direct debit, despite requesting this several times; and
3. charged her for a period before she moved in to the placement.
2. Mr A would like the Council to refund of some or all of Ms B’s charge.

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. 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

5. I considered Mr A’s complaint, the Council’s response and documents described below. Both parties saw a draft of this statement and I took comments into account.

Back to top

What I found

6. The law allows councils to charge people for care. Charges are calculated based on an assessment of the person’s income and savings. Guidance tells councils to carry out financial assessments promptly. People should receive a copy of their personal budget at the same time as their care and support plan. The personal budget is a statement of the cost of the care and should set out any charge.
7. Guidance explains councils should not delay in invoicing people for charges as large bills are unwelcome and stressful.

What happened

8. Ms B moved in to a shared lives placement on 1 June 2018. Ms B’s personal budget was set out in her care and support plan with no charge for her care.
9. A finance officer completed a financial assessment for Ms B on 25 June. The finance team wrote to Ms B to say there was no charge for her care based on her current finances, but she may be entitled to employment support allowance (ESA) and that any backdated payments she may get in future would be taken into account.
10. On 7 August, Ms B started to receive ESA and her first payment was backdated to 7 February. The finance team was aware of this. On 13 September, the finance team updated Ms B’s financial assessment to reflect that she was receiving ESA. Ms B now had to pay a charge for her care. The finance team wrote to Ms B on 13 September telling her about the charge. Unfortunately, the letter contained inaccurate information because it said the charge would apply from 9 April (it should have said 1 June.)
11. The Council told me it normally sends invoices four weeks in arrears and so Ms B should have received her first invoice on 1 October. Due to a processing error, the finance team sent the invoice on 12 October.
12. The invoice showed a charge for the week beginning 28 May, although Ms B did not move in to the placement until 1 June. The Council told me this was because it calculated weekly charges Monday to Sunday and Ms B moved in to the placement in the middle of a week. The Council paid the care provider for 1 to 3 June and Ms B’s charge was due for this period. During my investigation, the Council agreed to remove the charge for 1 to 3 June.
13. The case notes show a welfare officer met with Mr A and Ms B in October and she was upset about the large debt that had accrued. This prompted Mr A to complain. He asked the Council to set up a direct debit for the charge. The Council accepts it could have sent Mr A a direct debit mandate form as part of the response to his complaint. The Council also accepts Mr A chased several times before the direct debit was set up.
14. The Council told me it received the direct debit mandate form on 12 December and that the first collection date was 17 December, which was too soon after set-up for the bank to collect. The Council told me Ms B should have been advised to set up a standing order with the bank herself as this would have meant payment arrangements could have been in place earlier.
15. I asked the Council to consider whether there were grounds to waive all or part of the charges for Ms B’s care. The Council offered to remove charges of £2270 (1 June to 14 October) because:
• There should have been a financial assessment before Ms B moved in to the placement;
• The finance officer who completed the assessment did not include Ms B’s student loan. Had the loan been included, Ms B would have been required to be a charge from the date the service started;
• Delays in sorting out the direct debit were due to fault by the Council.

Was there fault and if so did this cause injustice?

Complaint a: The Council delayed in carrying out a financial assessment and did not invoice Ms B for her care charges for six months. This led to arrears building up and caused Ms B avoidable distress.

16. There was a three-week delay in carrying out a financial assessment. This is not in line with guidance which says an assessment should take place before care starts. This is so people have information about their outgoings and can plan their finances. The failure to carry out an assessment in line with guidance caused avoidable confusion. The Council has offered to remove charges before the assessment and this remedies the injustice to Ms B.
17. There was a delay in sending an invoice, but it was not a six-month delay. Ms B did not have to pay a charge at first and so there was no invoice. She received backdated benefits in August and this triggered a review of her financial assessment and a charge was due and an invoice sent. The records show Ms B was made aware that if she received backdated ESA, the Council would include it in her financial assessment. This would mean a lump sum would be due for the period which was previously assessed as no charge. This is standard practice and there is no fault.
18. The Council acknowledges there was an error which meant there was a delay in sending out the first invoice. This caused Ms B avoidable distress. The Council has recognised this and removed any charge before the date of the invoice.

Complaint b: The Council did not send Ms B information to set up a direct debit, despite requesting this several times.

19. The Council should have told Ms B to contact the bank directly, as this would have been the quickest way to set up a standing order. The failure to give the most helpful advice was fault and caused debt to accrue. Ms B suffered avoidable distress. The Council offered to remove part of the charge to recognise this.

Complaint c: The Council charged Ms B for a period before she moved in to the placement

20. I am satisfied Ms B was not charged before 1 June. The Council has explained the way it calculates weekly charges and that Ms B’s charge started in the middle of the charging week and was apportioned for that week.
21. Some of the Council’s correspondence was wrong as it referred to charges starting in April. This was fault and caused avoidable confusion. The Council has apologised and this remedies the injustice.

Agreed action

22. The Council has offered to apologise and remove charges of £2270 to reflect the injustice caused because of the fault identified above. It will do so within one month of this statement.

Back to top

Final decision

23. There was fault in the Council’s financial assessment and invoicing. This caused Ms B avoidable distress and inconvenience. To remedy the injustice, the Council will waive some of the charge and apologise.
24. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman