The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the care provider charging her father for cancelled care calls when he was in hospital. This is because there is no sign of fault by the care provider.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, complains the care provider charged her father, Mr Y, for eight care calls they cancelled at short notice when he was admitted to hospital on two separate occasions.
Mrs X complains on behalf of Mr Y as his executor as Mr Y sadly died earlier this year.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant. This included a copy of the care provider’s terms and conditions.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mrs X complained the care provider charged her father, Mr Y, for several care calls they cancelled when he was admitted to hospital on two separate occasions. They called the out of hours service to cancel the calls but they were still charged. Mrs X would like the care provider to waive the charges.
In response to the complaint, the care provider explained it had charged Mr Y in line with its terms and conditions which state it will charge for calls cancelled at short notice. In order not to charge for a call it requires 48 hours’ notice. However, as a gesture of goodwill it offered a partial reduction of the charges due.
The care provider’s terms and conditions set out how it deals with charges during holidays and hospital admissions. It states: ‘Section 8.2: Where you provide us with at least 48 hours’ notice of any planned holiday or other absence (up to a maximum of four weeks) we will not charge for those Services which were due to be delivered during that holiday or period of absence, after which period the Services are expected to recommence.
Section 8.3: If you are admitted to hospital due to unforeseen circumstances and you do not want the Carer to attend you in hospital, we will charge for the Services planned to be delivered during the first 48 hours of your hospitalisation.
Section 8.4: If you do not want the Services to start again after your planned holiday or hospital admission, you must provide us with at least 14 days’ notice to cancel. Where you have already provided us with 48 hours’ notice of any planned holiday or other absence (in accordance with Clause 8.2) or you have been admitted to hospital due to unforeseen circumstances, you will only need to provide us with five days’ notice to cancel.’
The care provider has charged Mr Y in line with its published terms and conditions, as set out above. Whilst the calls were cancelled the care provider did not receive 48 hours’ notice of the cancelled calls and so the charges still applied during that period. As such, there is no sign of fault by the care provider.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is no sign of fault by the care provider in charging for the cancelled calls.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman