Summary: We will discontinue the investigation into Ms X’s complaint about the care and support received at an alcohol and drug treatment centre as there is nothing more we could achieve. The care provider has offered a refund for the days after Ms X left the facility and has explained why this is less than the amount Ms X sought.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the care and support she received from We Do Recover CIC and that the refund offered is incorrect.
2. Ms X says she was not supported when feeling suicidal and in need of help and that she has lost out financially.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Care Provider;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Care Provider and the complainant and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Ms X paid £6,500 in advance for a 28-night stay at the drug and alcohol treatment centre run by We Do Recover CIC. Ms X did not stay for the full period she had paid for as she was dissatisfied with the standard of care and facilities provided. She stayed for 18 days only.
7. Ms X lists the following issues as the reason for leaving the treatment facility:
• Prescribed medication without being seen by a doctor;
• Sent alone by taxi to an out of hours clinic when on a medication that required supervision;
• Accommodation was dirty and did not display up to date cleaning information;
• Staff attempted to administer the wrong medication;
• Request to receive medication at a different time refused without good reason; and
• Did not arrange proper care when disclosed was having suicidal thoughts.
8. After leaving the treatment facility, Ms X requested a refund for the days she had not received services. Ms X calculated this amount as £2321.43 based on a nightly rate of £232.14.
9. The Care Provider responded making the following responses:
• It only prescribes medication after receiving a copy of the pre-admission assessment for and have completed a medical assessment with the client;
• Any person who requires urgent medical attention is sent to the relevant hospital or clinic and at the time of Ms X’s visit Covid-19 restrictions prevented anyone accompanying her;
• It disputed the facility was dirty saying it is cleaned on a daily basis;
• It provides a robust time process for medication to enable all clients to received medications as directed. It said evening medication is given at 10pm unless otherwise directed by the prescriber.
10. The Care Provider initially refused Ms X’s request for a partial refund instead offering a treatment credit. After further correspondence with Ms X, the Care Provider then offered a refund of £1,250. Ms X remained unhappy with this amount.
11. The Care Provider further explained that the cost per day reduces the longer a client stays in the facility and so it was not appropriate to used an average cost per day when working out the cost for the days she actually stayed at the facility. It said as Ms X stayed for 18 days then the cost would be for a 14 day stay (£4,000) plus four nights at the daily cost (£285.71) which totals £5124.84. It offered Ms X a refund of £1375 to bring the matter to a close.
12. Dissatisfied, Ms X complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

13. Ms X is seeking a refund for the cost of a treatment programme after she left a drug and alcohol treatment facility. On receiving her complaint, I made written enquiries to the Care Provider in particular seeking a copy of the contract and Ms X’s treatment programme. To date, the Care Provider has not provided any response to these enquiries.
14. The Ombudsman has powers similar to those of the courts to obtain evidence. We have considered using these powers and issuing a witness summons to the Chief Executive of We Do Recover CIC but decided it was not proportionate to do so in this case. In reaching this view we have considered public interest matters and what we could achieve.
15. It is our understanding that We Do Recover CIC and its Chief Executive were summonsed to appear at the Liverpool Magistrates’ Court on Tuesday 5 October 2022 to enter a plea to a charge under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 for non-registration of the facility. Information provided to us by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) indicates a guilty plea was entered for the company and a not guilty plea by the Chief Executive to the personal charge as a company director. As a result of this action by CQC, we are satisfied this brings the matter of non-registration of the facility into the public domain and reduces our need to act for public interest.
16. I have also considered the issue of how Ms X has been affected by this situation. The Care Provider accepts a refund is due but has calculated a lower figure than Ms X. It has explained how the charges are applied and that they do not equate to a daily figure for the entirety of the stay.
17. While I appreciate Ms X is not satisfied with the amount offered by the Care Provider, she did receive services for 18 days and so some payment is due. The Care Provider has explained how it calculated the amount of refund and it is offering more than half the amount requested by Ms X. On this basis, I am not persuaded further investigation would achieve anything more or that it would be proportionate to spend public money to do this. I am therefore exercising my discretion to discontinue the investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I will now discontinue my investigation as it is not considered anything further can be achieved.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman