Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to deal properly with the charges for her mother’s care, resulting in it asking her to pay a bill she cannot afford to pay. The Council accepts it was at fault over the long delay in charging her mother for her care. It has offered to waive £500 of the outstanding charges and to agree a repayment plan for the remainder. There are no grounds to ask the Council to do more than that.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complains the Council failed to deal properly with the charges for her mother’s care, resulting in it asking her to pay a bill she cannot afford to pay.

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. 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, sections 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mrs X;
• discussed the complaint with Mrs X;
• considered the comments and documents the Council has provided in response to my enquiries;
• considered the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies; and
• invited comments on a draft of this statement from Mrs X and the Council, for me to consider before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

5. Mrs X’s mother, Mrs Y, lives at home with a package of care provided by the Council. In early 2021 Mrs Y had a package of intermediate care, for which there was no charge, while decisions were made about her long-term care needs. That package of care ended on 2 March 2021. From 3 March it was replaced by an increased long-term package of care which was chargeable. Although the Council recorded the increased package of care it failed to:
• identify the need for a financial assessment to decide how much Mrs Y had to pay towards the cost of her care; and
• failed to record the change from a free to a chargeable service.
6. The Council did not identify the error until August. However, although it did a financial assessment, it failed to update Mrs Y’s records properly, which continued to show her receiving a free service. The Council wrote to Mrs Y, at Mrs X’s address, saying she would have to pay £100.46 a week towards the cost of her care. The Council said it would not backdate the charges more than four weeks, as there had been a delay in doing the financial assessment. This meant Mrs Y continued to receive free care between 3 March and 26 July. The Council invited Mrs Y to complete a direct debit form, but said the alternative was for it to invoice her every four weeks. Mrs X says they returned the direct debit form, but the Council has no record of this.
7. At the time Mrs X was helping her mother with her finances, for instance taking money out of the bank for her, but Mrs Y had the capacity to decide what to do with her money. Mrs X does not have power of attorney to manage her mother’s finances. However, Mrs Y has vascular dementia which progressed gradually over the next year. Mrs Y says they only realised there was a problem when she asked them to get cash for her in quick succession. They then discovered she had been making significant donations to charity. She says this was around September 2022.
8. In October 2022 the Council identified its error and updated its records to reflect the fact Mrs Y had been receiving a chargeable service since July. This resulted in it issuing an invoice for over £6,000. Mrs X returned a direct debate mandate in November. However, she complained about the way the Council had dealt with her mother’s finances.
9. When responding to Mrs X’s complaint in December, the Council accepted its faults and apologised. It said it had no record of receiving the direct debit mandate in 2021. But that did not alter the fact that it failed to invoice Mrs Y every four weeks, which was the default position if it did not have a direct debit mandate. The Council said it would not write off the charges, as Mrs Y would have had to pay them if it had not made an error. It said they had been aware of the charges since August 2021, so could have put money aside to pay them. However, it offered to waive £500 of the outstanding charges. It also offered to discuss and arrange a suitable repayment plan for the outstanding charges, as Mrs X said her mother did not have enough money to pay the full amount.
10. Mrs X told the Council it had verbally confirmed receiving the direct debit mandate in 2021. The Council said its recordings of Mrs X’s conversations with officers did not support that claim. It provided her with transcripts. It also noted she had accepted the need to pay the charges. Although she said Mrs Y did not have the money to pay the outstanding charge in one lump sum, she had said she would prefer to pay the invoice over 12 months.

Is there evidence of fault by the Council which caused injustice?

11. There is no dispute over the fact that the Council failed to deal properly with the charges for Mrs Y’s care. The Council has offered to waive £500 of the outstanding fees because of the significant delay in invoicing Mrs Y for her charge. The issue for me to consider is whether this is enough to remedy the injustice to Mrs Y.
12. Mrs Y received free care for over four months longer than should have been the case, because of the Council’s initial error. This will have benefitted her by over £1,800, in addition to the £500 the Council has offered to waive from the outstanding charges. The charges themselves are legitimate and, as the Council pointed out, Mrs Y would have paid them all if it had not made a series of errors. Within that context there are no grounds to ask the Council to do more than it has offered to do. If paying the outstanding charges over 12 months is no longer affordable for Mrs Y, Mrs X should discuss this further with the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I have completed my investigation on the basis there has been fault by the Council causing injustice which has already been remedied.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman