Mr A complained on behalf of his mother, Ms B. The investigation considered whether the Council had undertaken a thorough investigation to ascertain the reason(s) why there were such delays in the re-assessments of care and support service contributions and whether appropriate action had been undertaken to ensure that this issue did not re-occur the next financial year. We also considered if the rationale for, and the amount of the accumulated debt, was communicated to Ms B appropriately and if the repayment plan and the planned increase in direct debit without consent/authorisation was appropriate.
Based on the material obtained during the course of the investigation, it was evident that the re-assessment process was protracted and there were gaps in communication with Ms B which compounded matters. The Council had already increased staffing to address the re-assessment backlog, which it reported was decreasing. However the Ombudsman felt that the Council’s Non-Residential Charging Policy (“the Policy”) and written communication with service users could be clearer, and should include a more realistic timeframe for re-assessments to manage expectations, and clarification that whilst the direct debit mandate permitted the revision of payment without further authorisation, this should be made clear in the Policy.
The Council agreed to undertake the following in response to a proposal made by the Ombudsman to settle the complaint: • Within 1 month, the Council will provide Ms B with an apology in her primary language which acknowledges the issues in the process that have caused her distress and necessitated the making of this complaint and to pay her £250 for the distress caused and the time and trouble in making her complaint.
• Within 3 months, the Council will review and revise the Non-Residential Charging Policy; review and revise the April re-assessment letters sent to service users; and, carry out an internal investigation of the re-assessment process.