Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (24 002 136)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: Ms T complained about the way Barchester Healthcare Homes dealt with payment for her father’s care. We found the Council is at fault in its communication with Ms T. Barchester Healthcare Homes has recognised this and apologised. It has also agreed to make a symbolic payment to Ms T in recognition of the impact on her.
The complaint
- Ms T complains Barchester Healthcare Home (the Home) took an unauthorised payment from her father’s account and left him overdrawn. She also complains the Council wrongly said she had missed a payment when she had not.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- We investigate complaints about adult social care providers and decide whether their actions have caused an injustice, or could have caused injustice, to the person making the complaint. I have used the term fault to describe such actions. If they have caused a significant injustice or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B, 34C and 34H(3 and 4) as amended)
- If an adult social care provider’s actions have caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34H(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)
- Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).
How I considered this complaint
- I have considered information provided by the Council and Ms T, alongside the relevant law and guidance.
- Ms T and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on a draft decision before this final decision was made.
What I found
What happened
- Ms T’s father (Mr A) moved into the Home in March 2023. At the time, his care was funded by the Council.
- In September 2023, a change of circumstance meant Mr A became responsible for the cost of his own care. Ms T had deputyship for his finances, so she dealt with payments to the Home from this point.
- The Home arranged a monthly direct debit for Mr A’s care. Ms T made an initial manual payment as it would take time to set up the direct debit payments.
- Ms T made a BACS payment for the care fees between 18 September and 31 October 2023.
- The Home started to collect direct debit payments from 1 December 2023. This payment was therefore in arrears for November 2023.
- A further payment in arrears was taken on 1 January 2024 for December 2023.
- The Home noticed that it was collecting payments in arrears, which is not in line with its policy, and issued another bill on 9 January for the January care fees. The payment was not collected until the next scheduled direct debit collection, on 1 February.
- On 1 February 2024, the home collected payment for the bill issued on 9 January, for January’s care fees in arrears, and for February’s fees in advance also. This payment would bring future payments in line with its policy of collecting payment in advance.
- Ms T was alerted to this when she was contacted by the bank to let her know her father’s account was overdrawn due to the unexpected larger payment. She cancelled the payment, and the bank returned the direct debit unpaid.
- Ms T then made a manual payment for the bill of 1 February, leaving January’s fees unpaid.
- Ms T complained to the Home, and they explained that the payments in arrears had been an error. They explained they had sought to bring payments up to date to allow collection in advance from 1 February.
Analysis and Findings
- The Home has not shown that it explained to Ms T that it charges fees in advance in September 2023 when she took over dealing with the payments. Nor has it shown that it explained that it intended to change the way it was taking payments in January 2024 when it recognised there was a mistake.
- The Home is entitled to structure its charging the way it wishes to if this is explained to its residents or family. It is not obliged to charge in arrears. However, in this case it made an error and then failed to explain this to Ms T. This is fault.
- Ms T has described her shock at the bank contacting her to say her father’s account was overdrawn due to an unexpectedly large payment on 1 February. This is an injustice to her as a direct result of the Home’s fault.
- It is understandable that Ms T has been shocked and upset by what has happened here, and I have seen the Home has apologised and acknowledged that its communication should have been better.
- The Home also confirmed it had reminded its staff of the importance of being clear in their communication about payments and the service it provides.
- I am satisfied that the Home has not overcharged for Mr A’s care fees overall, and the fees paid are in line with the bills issued. The injustice is therefore limited to the non-financial impact on Ms T. This should be addressed by way of a symbolic payment to Ms T.
Agreed action
- Within one month of the decision, the Home will make a symbolic payment of £100 to Ms T in recognition of the impact on her.
- The Home will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Final decision
- Following our investigation, we found the Home at fault and it has agreed to provide a remedy for the injustice caused.
Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman