Summary: Mrs B complains the Council did not tell her she would need to inform it if she started receiving a personal independence payment when a Council social worker helped her make an application. The Council accepts it knew about the award and should not have backdated charges. The Council has offered a satisfactory remedy which involves an apology, cancelling the backdated charges, payment to Mrs B and reminder to officers.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs B, complained the Council did not tell her she needed to inform it if she started receiving a personal independence payment (PIP) when a Council social worker helped her make the application.
2. Mrs B says because of the Council’s actions she faced a significant bill which meant she had to cancel the care she received as she could not afford it. Mrs B says this also caused her distress and affected her mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mrs B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
5. Mrs B and the organisation 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

6. Following a discharge from hospital a mental health social worker completed a face-to-face visit with Mrs B in January 2021. Mrs B agreed to a period of enablement and Mrs B returned to her flat in April 2021. The Council put in place a chargeable package of care for 14 hours per week, increasing to 21 hours per week. The Council completed a financial assessment and told Mrs B she needed to contribute £3.50 per week towards the cost of her care and support. The Council told Mrs B if her financial circumstances changed she would need to tell the Council.
7. In May 2021 the Council’s social worker identified Mrs B was eligible to apply for PIP and helped Mrs B apply. Mrs B’s application was successful but the Council’s social worker did not tell the financial assessment team. The first the financial assessment team knew about the award was in June 2023. Following that the Council completed a further financial assessment and told Mrs B she needed to pay £103.31 towards her care and support. The Council told Mrs B it would backdate that charge to the beginning of the financial year in April 2023. The Council later backdated the charges to the original award in May 2021.
8. Mrs B contacted the Council to tell it she could not afford to pay the assessed charge and the backdated charges. The Council agreed a payment plan with Mrs B to pay the outstanding debt.
9. Mrs B challenged the Council’s decision to backdate the charges. Mrs B said the Council knew she had been awarded PIP. Mrs B said the Council also knew she was not mentally well enough to understand the implications of not telling the Council about the award. The Council did not uphold that complaint.
10. The Council now accepts it should not have backdated the charges for Mrs B’s care. That is because the Council accepts the social worker knew about the PIP award but failed to pass that information onto the finance department. The Council also recognises Mrs B had spent several periods in hospital and was suffering from an acute mental crisis. The Council therefore accepts it should have checked whether she understood her care and support was means tested. The Council accepts this contributed to Mrs B accumulating a debt and that it failed to consider whether it was appropriate to backdate the charges. I welcome the Council’s willingness to admit that things were not handled properly in this case.
11. The Council has proposed the following remedy for the complaint:
• apology to Mrs B;
• cancellation of the backdated charges;
• cancellation of the charges up until the point at which Mrs B cancelled her care support as a gesture of goodwill;
• payment of £700 to reflect the impact this had on Mrs B and the time and trouble she had to go to;
• to send a reminder to staff in adult social care. That will cover the need to recognise what constitutes a financial change of circumstances for those who are receiving a chargeable service and the need to tell the service user a financial change in circumstances may result in a change to their assessed charge;
• to send a reminder to its adult social care teams to ensure information is shared with the financial assessment team to prevent any unnecessary debt;
• to send a reminder to those dealing with complaints about the importance of considering all the concerns and offering a resolution at an early stage.
12. I consider the Council’s proposal for remedy satisfactory. I have therefore discontinued my investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I have discontinued my investigation as the Council has accepted fault and offered a satisfactory remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman