Summary: Mr X complained about inflated invoices issued by the Council and his requests for them to be corrected being ignored; failure to explain and document how the Council had reached the figures for the corrected charges and said the Council changed its time sheet reporting software, but invoice inflation continued. We find the Council was at fault for delay and lack of consideration of Mr X’s requests and failing to properly explain how it had reached the figures for the corrected charges. This caused Mr and Mrs X significant distress. We make several recommendations to address this injustice caused by fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains:
1. the Council’s finance team issued inflated invoices and ignored requests for them to be corrected;
2. the Council accepted the invoices were wrong but failed to explain and document how it had reached the figures for the corrected charges; and
3. the Council changed its time sheet reporting software, but invoice inflation continued.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

4. I spoke with Mr X about his complaint. I considered all the information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. Mr X sadly passed away on the 11 October 2024. His son, Mr Y, is therefore representing his complaint.
6. Mr Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my revised draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Charging for social care services: the power to charge

7. A council has a duty to arrange care and support for those with eligible needs, and a power to meet both eligible and non-eligible needs in places other than care homes. A council can choose to charge for non-residential care following a person’s needs assessment. Where it decides to charge, the council must follow the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 and have regard to the Care Act statutory guidance. (Care Act 2014, section 14 and 17)

Back to top

Summary of the key events

8. In 2021, the Council wrote to Mr X’s wife, Mrs X to explain she had been assessed to pay the full cost charge of £136.26 per week towards the cost of her care.
9. The Council sent Mrs X the invoices for care charges from November 2021 to January 2022 in February 2022. The Council sent Mrs X a letter in May 2022. It stated there was an overdue balance of £2988.21.
10. Mr X contacted the Council in December 2022. He said one of the invoices contained multiple errors. He said the timesheet was not trustworthy and the majority of the visits recorded were fraudulent. He asked the Council to investigate.
11. Mr X contacted the Council again in the same month. He asked for the timesheets from October so he could identify the errors.
12. In January 2023, the Council’s emails state it had looked into the issues raised. It attached a list of all the visits logged by the care provider.
13. The Council wrote to Mrs X the following month. It said invoices remained unpaid and stated the overdue balance was £4188.62. But the Council sent a further letter in March 2023 which stated the balance was now £4449.23.
14. In response, Mr X said he had repeatedly pointed out errors with the invoices. He said he was still waiting for them to be corrected. He said the overdue balance was based on flawed records. He provided details of previous emails he had sent about this. This included several emails he had sent to the Council in 2022 which explained:
• there were many errors with the invoices;
• Mr X noted he had paid for the amount he considered to be correct; and
• he was still waiting for the Council to correct the invoices and credit him money he was owed.
15. In March 2023 the Council sent Mr X copies of all invoices between November 2021 and March 2023. It requested Mr and Mrs X pay the balance which it said was £4449.23.
16. Mr X explained he would not pay whilst the amount owing was not correct. The Council later wrote to him and explained some adjustments had been made. This included a payment of £210 to remove the payment for a period when Mrs X was in respite and wrongly recorded visits.
17. The Council wrote to Mrs X in April 2023 and stated the balance was now £4528.11.
18. In May 2023, Mr X advised the Council of some errors with the invoice. This included overcharges for visits that did not take place. He said he had paid the amount that he considered to be correct.
19. The Council’s emails state some adjustments were made totalling £90.86. This was for a cancelled visit on the 3 October 2022 and incorrect charges for double handed care between November and December 2022.
20. The Council wrote to Mrs X in June 2023. It said two credit adjustments had been applied to the account of £173.60 and £90.86 which left the balance at £2735.20.
21. Mr X wrote to the Council the following month. He said an invoice contained errors and concealed double charges which had already been paid on a different invoice. He said there were further errors for charges in May. But he said the Council was aware Mrs X stopped receiving care from the care provider on the 12 April 2023.
22. The Council apologised for the overcharge and said the care provider had loaded the data twice. It said this would be reflected in the next invoice. But it said there was no evidence of duplicate charges. It also said the end date of the care provision was the 12 May 2023 and stated the charges were correct.
23. Mr X disagreed with this and asked the Council to provide copies of any time sheets it had supporting its claim that services continued until May 2023. Mr X also said:
• the statement sent to Mrs X in June 2023 was misleading as it failed to include any of the payments he had made against the six invoices listed as outstanding;
• he was disappointed the Council had ignored all the evidence he had presented and the fact the Council was still demanding money for invoices that had already been paid in full; and
• he was still waiting for corrected statements, and he said he was waiting to be credited for six non existing visit charges.
24. In August 2023, the Council made an adjustment and credited £20.27 for an overcharge in May 2023.
25. Mr X re-sent the Council details of the errors he had identified on the 25 August 2023. He said the Council had still not linked his payments to the invoices.
26. The Council sent Mrs X a final reminder letter in January 2024. It stated invoices remained unpaid and said the balance was £2714.93. But Mr X said the Council’s records were not up to date. He referred the Council to his previous emails.
27. In March 2023, the Council considered Mr X’s email from the 25 August 2023. It said it had allocated the payments against the invoices and said the outstanding balance was £2714.93.
28. The Council referred the matter to its debt recovery team in April 2024. The Council sent a further final reminder in June 2024. In response Mr X said the letter had ignored previous correspondence providing evidence that all invoices had been settled and Mrs X’s account was closed over a year ago. He said the £250 offered by the Council in its complaint’s response had not been provided.

The complaint to the Council

29. In response to Mr X’s complaint to the Council, it said:
• its records indicated Mr X had raised numerous issues regarding charges. It apologised and said the Council had taken a long time to resolve the issues;
• it uses a specific system that supplies the visit times. The information is input into this system by the care provider and should be an accurate reflection of the visits provided;
• it was clear in this case that the information provided was not accurate. But it said it had now stopped using this system and could not conduct a full investigation;
• adjustments had now been made to correct the charges following the queries raised; and
• apologised if Mr X felt pressured to set up a direct debit. It said it could not cancel invoices which were incorrect. It said a credit note would be issued separately the next month.
30. Mr X asked for his complaint to be escalated.
31. The Council’s final complaints response states:
• it did not disagree with the previous complaints response;
• there were invoices and credit notes which were unclear. It said Mr X did not receive call backs to explain the amendments;
• there were no systematic issues of overcharging for care and care hours were not intentionally invented;
• the care provider had input some data incorrectly onto the system and this took some time to correct. When it was corrected, this was not properly explained to Mr X;
• the timesheets provided to Mr X are from the care providers records;
• the care provider accepted it incorrectly charged for a period where Mrs X was in respite. This record has been modified;
• it attached a spreadsheet that detailed the invoices alongside the credit notes which match the care that was provided. This includes the administration fees for periods after Mrs X stopped receiving the care; and
• offered Mr X a payment of £250 in recognition of the time and stress this had caused him. It also said there was an outstanding balance of £2714.93.

Analysis- was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

Part a of the complaint

32. The Council explained care providers will submit the care visit information onto a system. The Council then issue invoices which detail the care being charged, and clients are expected to check these invoices and raise any queries. In addition, the Council said it carries out internal checks and takes corrective action where there are significant variances, above the normal day to day fluctuations. Therefore, in this case, we could not criticise the Council for the invoices it sent. It was relying on information provided to it by the care provider.
33. From the evidence seen, Mr X raised issues with the invoices in 2022. The Council’s emails stated in January 2023 it had looked into it. But no update was provided to Mr or Mrs X. This is fault. The Council proceeded to send further letters detailing what money was owed.
34. In March 2023, Mr X said he was still waiting for the invoices to be corrected. It was noted the Council made some adjustments. This was for wrongly recorded visits and for being charged during the period Mrs X was in respite.
35. Mr X raised further concerns in May and July 2023. The Council made some further adjustments. But it did not agree that there were duplicate charges. In August 2023 the Council made an adjustment for overcharges in May 2023.
36. As part of the concerns raised by Mr X, he provided the Council with full details of invoices he believed were wrong in 2022 and 2023. He explained that he had paid the amount he considered to be correct and asked the Council to credit him the remaining amount.
37. The Council wrote to Mrs X in April 2024 after it had referred the case to its recovery debt team. It sent Mr and Mrs X full details of the invoices and payments. I have reviewed this spreadsheet against the invoices Mr X raised concerns with. There are several invoices marked as unpaid. But Mr X had provided the Council with details of the amount he had paid for each invoice. There is no evidence to suggest that has been taken into account when calculating the final balance. This is fault. This has caused significant distress to Mr and Mrs X. Mr X has spent unnecessary time and trouble in repeatedly asking the Council to consider his request.
38. I note that Mr X is not happy that the Council re-opened some matters prior to 2022. But the Council is entitled to do so, and we could not criticise this.
39. We have considered whether others have been affected. The Council has confirmed that nine clients were affected and stated they have been subsequently reimbursed.
40. In the Council’s complaints response, it offered Mr and Mrs X a payment of £250 in recognition of the stress and time this complaint had caused them. It said it was happy to either pay this or deduct it from the outstanding balance. I have seen no evidence to suggest this was paid, despite Mr X raising this in June 2024. This is fault.

Part b of the complaint

41. Mr X said the Council accepted the invoices were wrong. But he said it failed to explain and document how it had reached the figures for the corrected charges. From the evidence seen, it was clear Mr X had raised several concerns. In my view, the Council could have done more to evidence how it had reached the figures for the corrected charges. This would have made things clearer.

Part c of the complaint

42. Mr X said the Council changed its time sheet reporting software, but invoice inflation continued. The Council told Mr X in its complaints response in June 2023 that it had stopped using the system. I note Mr X said they stopped using the services in April 2023.
43. From the evidence seen there is no evidence to suggest the Council continued to issue new inflated invoices. But it did continue to send previous invoice charges which Mr X continued to raise concerns with. As stated under part a of the complaint, the Council did not properly consider the invoices Mr X had already paid. This is fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

44. Sadly, it is no longer possible to remedy the injustice to Mrs and Mr X as they have died. To remedy the injustice to the estate caused by fault, within one month of the date of my final decision the Council has agreed to:
• complete a review of the invoices it considers to be unpaid and issue a revised bill. It should take all of the concerns raised by Mr X into consideration when doing so and take into the consideration the money he has already paid. If the Council disagrees with any of Mr X’s concerns, it should properly explain why to Mr Y and say how it has reached the decision it has. If the Council decides to deduct any money, this should be deducted from the final bill;
• deduct the previous £250 it offered Mr X off the final bill.
45. To remedy the injustice caused to Mr Y the Council should pay him £200. This is in recognition of the time and trouble he has and will spend reviewing the invoices and the revised bill.
46. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

47. There was fault by the Council. The actions the Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman