Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly respond to his queries about care fees. We found there was significant fault in the way the Council responded. We recommended an apology, a payment to Mr X and actions to review and improve the service provided.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council made incorrect charges for care his mother received and it did not resolve his queries about this in a timely manner.
2. Mr X also complained that the Council’s telephone lines for these queries only allowed him to leave messages, which were not returned and that his emails were not responded to.
3. Mr X says the situation was very difficult and made the family unsure about his mother’s financial position, so they were unable to access her funds. This was stressful for the family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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

6. I spoke to Mr X and considered the information he provided. I asked the Council for information and I took account of what it told me and its response to Mr X’s complaint.
7. Mr X 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

Communication & Council Responsiveness

8. Mr X’s mother was receiving care visits at home which had been arranged by the Council.
9. In April 2022 Mr X complained. He stated he had been contacting the Council since late 2021 to chase up statements that had not been received so that he knew how much to pay for her care. He stated no-one was responding, despite him leaving messages.
10. The finance team that Mr X needed to contact was part of a service the Council has outsourced to an external provider (Liberata). I note Mr X also contacted Adult Social Care teams to raise queries. I have referred to all Mr X’s contacts as being with ‘the Council’ in this statement.
11. Between April 2022 when Mr X made his complaint and February 2023 the Council told us Mr X contacted the Council thirteen times, many of these were emails. The Council failed to respond to ten of these contacts. This included a failure to respond to his April 2022 complaint. There was also a significant delay responding to a further complaint Mr X made to his councillor on 14 September. A response was provided on 29 December.
12. Mr X told us he had made many more contacts than the Council’s records showed. In his correspondence he explained he had been making contact with the Council by telephone, by leaving answerphone messages and he had emailed the Council many times, starting in late 2021. Mr X told us when he was able to speak to someone on the telephone they could not help resolve queries, they could only take messages. He stated messages and emails were not returned.
13. The Council accepted sometimes it was difficult to contact the social care finance team, particularly at busy times. It stated the telephone line was very busy and had an answerphone message facility. The Council stated the relevant team aimed to respond to messages within two days. The Council accepted that the level of service fell short of this and there were unacceptable delays in responding to Mr X’s queries and concerns. In Mr X’s case, queries also needed to be raised with care agencies before responding. The Council acknowledged and apologised that it had let Mr X down and this had caused anxiety.

Mr X’s Queries

14. The main queries Mr X raised throughout the contacts with the Council were that he had not received all the statements/invoices that he should have done (so he was concerned that he could not pay the relevant bills) and that his mother had been overcharged for care for various reasons. Mr X cited several periods when his mother had been in hospital, but she was still invoiced for care at her home. He also questioned why his mother had been charged for care at home following discharge form hospital when the NHS had agreed to pay for care for set periods under COVID‑19 discharge arrangements.
15. In April 2022 Mr X raised queries about missing statements and incorrect charges for periods his mother had been in hospital. There is evidence some information was provided to Mr X by the Council in May 2022. However, a number of his queries were not resolved. When we put them to the Council it provided information to explain the charges Mr X had queried. We passed this on to Mr X. However, it was evident from the information the Council provided, that it had not completed some of the necessary refunds from overcharged care as far back as November 2021.
16. The Council told us there were a few factors that led to Mr X’s mother being overcharged. These included a change to a new computer system and delays in receiving information about his mother’s hospitalisation and when NHS COVID care was applicable. The Council stated the issues with its computer system were largely resolved and it had been working with providers to ensure more timely information was provided.
17. The Council sent us a copy of a letter sent to Mr X in February 2022 which set out changes in the care Mr X’s mother needed. This indicated that her care needs had increased, so the cost of care would be increased from that point. The letter stated a financial assessment would be carried out to determine the contribution Miss X would pay. I undertstand that a financial assessment was carried out and it determined Miss X was responsible for paying all of her care fees. The Council told us that, unfortunately, when the care was put in place, it was charged as single-handed, rather than double-handed care. This means that care has been charged at the wrong (lower) rate since February 2022.
18. We passed Mr X the information the Council provided us about the care fees.
19. Mr X explained that the lack of information and response to his queries made the family anxious about spending any of his mother’s funds for her because he was unclear what her care charges should have been and what might still need to be paid. This caused the family anxiety and it was stressful and frustrating that he kept having to contact the Council to chase it to explain and correct the situation.

Was there fault by the Council

20. There was significant failure to respond to Mr X’s correspondence and contacts. There was a lack of acknowledgement and response. This was fault. The failure to respond continued despite Mr X making a complaint and raising the issues with his councillor. The Council acknowledged it had not responded to Mr X’s complaint from April 2022 and there was a three-month delay responding to the issues raised via his councillor in September 2022.
21. Based on what Mr X and the Council have told us, other service users may also have had difficulty in raising and resolving basic queries. As a result., we have recommended action to address Mr X’s complaint and to look at the Council’s processes.
22. Aside from the lack of response to Mr X’s contacts, there was a failure to address the actual issues he was raising. Some of the adjustments to reflect that care was billed for periods it was not received remained outstanding at the time of our investigation. This was poor, and also represents fault. The Council provided us with information to explain the current situation to resolve this.
23. There was further fault because the Council failed to correctly charge Mr X’s mother for her care from February 2022.

Back to top

Agreed action

24. Within four weeks of our final decision:
25. The Council should send a written apology to Mr X for the lack of communication and response to his queries and for the errors that it made in his mother’s case.
26. The Council should pay Mr X £300 to recognise the distress and frustration caused by the failure to properly respond and resolve his queries.
27. If Mr X wishes to, the Council should arrange to meet with him to go through any outstanding issues and explain the position with his mother’s care fees.
28. The Council should give Mr X a named contact and their direct contact details to ensure ownership of any future queries Mr X has about his mother’s care fees.
29. Within three months of our final decision:
30. The Council should provide us with evidence that steps have been taken to improve the issues with its computer systems and its communications with stakeholders.
31. The Council should review the way in which Liberata responds to queries from service users, what service level agreements are in place for responding to customer queries and how the Council will ensure that the service provided is acceptable.
32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

33. There was fault by the Council. As the Council has agreed to take the action required, I have completed my investigation and closed my file.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman