The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complaints the Council wrongly charged his mother for a telecare service, and it failed to properly conduct financial assessments. We found the Council was at fault for charges on its telecare service and it failed to clearly explain what charges were likely for his mother’s care at the outset. However, we found no evidence of fault in the way the financial assessments were carried out. We recommended a remedy for the error the council made with charges.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council wrongly charged his mother (referred to in this statement as Mrs Y) for a telecare/alarm service. He also complains the Council failed to properly carry out financial assessments and the Council did not clearly explain the situation to him. Mr X complains that the incorrect charges left his mother with less money to spend and the issues with the financial assessments caused frustration and stress.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I spoke to Mr X and considered his complaint. I asked the Council for information and considered its response to the complaint.
Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered the comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Mrs Y has received a package of care since 2020 following an earlier diagnosis of dementia.
In June 2021 the Council agreed to make direct payments to Mrs Y so that the family could employ a carer for around seven hours per week. In early October 2021 Mr X asked the Council to arrange care for Mrs Y instead of the family receiving direct payments. A package of care began on 22 November 2021.
A financial assessment was completed in December which the Council sent to Mr X. This stated Mrs Y’s assessed contribution towards her care was £91.40 per week. As there was a delay in carrying out the financial assessment, the charges began from 20 December 2021.
In December Mr X reported that the carer was struggling to get Mrs Y in and out of the bath and he asked the Council to provide a lockable gate to prevent Mrs Y from escaping the family home. The Council agreed to place Mrs Y on a waiting list for an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment. It stated a gate would not be provided, but other ways of keeping Mrs Y from escaping could be considered. Case notes on the council’s files stated Mr X did not wish to discuss other options.
An OT was assigned on 31 January and visited Mrs Y in February 2022.
On 2 February the Council confirmed the amount Mrs Y needed to pay towards her care was £91.40.
In February 2022 Mr X complained. He stated the original assessor confirmed the Council would pay for Mrs Y’s care, but after it started an officer rudely told him that Mrs Y had to pay. He also stated his mother had been required to pay for a telecare alarm system wrongly for years.
The Council explained how it decided that Mrs Y needed to pay a contribution to her care. It enclosed a breakdown to show how it was calculated. The Council stated, if Mr X thought the information used to make the decision was wrong, he should let the council know.
The Council acknowledged that when officers had originally spoken to him about his mother’s care, they took account of a 2019 financial assessment which found she did not need to make a contribution. As a result officers expected she would not need to pay this time. However, officers should have said that an up-to-date financial assessment would be needed. The Council apologised for not making this clear. When a financial assessment was done it found a charge was needed.
The Council responded to Mr X’s comments about the telecare service. It stated that due to an error, the Council had charged Mrs Y for her telecare service from 2019. It accepted the outcome of the financial assessment done in 2019 was that Mrs Y did not need to pay. However, this was overlooked at that time. This resulted in charges being made between April 2019 and December 2021 when this came to light. The Council confirmed it would be making a full refund of all the charges made for this. The amount of the refund was £880.16. The Council stated that Mrs Y would still need to pay a quarterly amount of £13 for her key safe.
The Council stated it had reviewed all the correspondence sent to Mr X by the officer he complained about. It found nothing to indicate staff were unprofessional or rude, so it did not uphold this element of the complaint.
Mr X remained unhappy and asked to escalate the complaint. He was particularly concerned about the way an officer had spoken to him. He stated the refund showed what a mess had been made of the situation. The Council referred Mr X to the Ombudsman.
Mr X chased the refund due to his mother on 21 March 2022. The Council confirmed the payment was being processed.
Mr X provided us with examples of ongoing correspondence with the Council from March 2022. In June 2022 a revised financial assessment was conducted. It showed Mrs Y had less income. This reduced the amount she needed to contribute to £64.17. This took effect from May 2022.
In July 2022 Mr X shared with us a further telecare invoice he received for £13. He considered this was incorrect because the Council had already apologised for charging for telecare and it had issued a refund.
Mr X also shared correspondence with the Council in which it further reduced the contribution his mother needed to pay. The Council told Mr X it had accepted that a befriender service that she used should be treated as partly a Disability Related Expense. As a result, this was deducted from the income that the Council took account of when deciding how much Mrs Y had to pay. This reduced her contribution to £36.98 per week.
Mr X copied the Ombudsman into correspondence about a number of other issues with the Council while we were considering this complaint. These had not been considered by the Council through its complaints process and were not part of the complaint Mr X originally made to the Ombudsman. Mr X may raise further complaints with the Council if he wishes to. If he remains unhappy after the Council responds, he can then bring a fresh complaint to the us about these issues.
Was there fault by the Council There was fault by the Council. It accepted that through an error, it charged Mrs Y for a telecare service between July 2019 and December 2021 that it should not have done. I understand the Council has refunded these charges in full. However, I also recommend that the Council makes a payment of £100 to reflect that Mrs Y was without these funds over a prolonged period of time.
I note Mr X received a further invoice for telecare which he thought was further evidence of errors by the Council. However, this does not appear to be an error. The Council confirmed in response to Mr X’s complaint that a £13 quarterly charge would still be needed for a key safe.
The Council accepted that information given to Mr X initially by the Council was not clear. The officer suggested there would be no charge for services the council was introducing. However, the officer should have explained that this would need to be confirmed by an updated financial assessment. The Council has already apologised to Mr X for this.
I have not found fault in the way the Council carried out financial assessments for Mrs Y. Although I recognise that since the decision in December 2021, two further financial assessments have taken place in June 2022 and more recently. In each case the contribution Mrs Y has to pay has reduced. However, this does not mean that the Council’s original financial assessment was wrong. The Council took account of income information provided by the Department for Work and Pensions. In June 2022 the income had reduced, and in the most recent financial assessment, the Council took account of a befriending service that Mrs Y received and treated it as Disability Related Income. These are factors that the Council should take account of. I do not consider there was fault.
I have not seen evidence that the council officer Mr X complained of was rude or unprofessional to him. Some of the contacts Mr X referred to were verbal and I cannot prefer one person’s recollection of these events over another. I have not reached a finding on this element of Mr X’s complaint as there is no robust evidence upon which I can make such a finding.
Agreed action
Within four weeks of my final decision: The Council should pay Mrs Y £100 to reflect that she was without a significant amount of funds over a prolonged period due to the error it made with billing for her telecare service.
The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.
Final decision
There was fault by the Council. As the Council agreed to remedy the complaint as I recommended, I have now completed my investigation and closed my file.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman