The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: There was fault by the Council which failed to provide appropriate information about care charges at the right time. This caused avoidable distress of receiving a large bill. Within one month of the final decision, the Council will apologise and reduce the bill by £100.
The complaint
Mrs X complained for her son Mr Y about Cheshire West and Chester Council (the Council). She said officers did not tell Mr Y or her about the charge for his care and support.
Mrs X said she had received threatening letters from a debt agency and this caused her and Mr Y distress. She does not think Mr Y should have to pay.
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 a council’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 considered Mrs X’s complaint to us, the Council’s response to her complaint and documents set out in this statement.
Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Relevant law and guidance Care and Support Statutory Guidance (CSSG) is statutory guidance which councils should have regard to. CSSG says councils can charge people for care they provide and if there is a charge, this should follow national regulations on charging.
Councils must be transparent so people know what they will be charged. There should be enough information available so they can understand any charge. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance, paragraphs 8.2 and 8.3) What happened Mr Y’s social care assessment in April 2020 had no record of any discussion about charges. The outcome of the social care assessment was Mr Y was eligible for care services and the Council commissioned an agency to support him.
Mrs X told us a council officer phoned her in June to say they were sending an invoice for the care received. She said she spoke to Mr Y’s social worker who said he would ask for the charge to be waived. She then received an invoice but had no feedback about waiving the charge. The Council’s financial assessment team wrote to Mrs X at the start of July with an explanation of how it had calculated Mr Y’s weekly charge.
A panel of managers met in October to discuss the request to waive the charge. Mr Y’s social worker commented to the panel: “…client contribution was discussed with Mr Y prior to the commencement of the package, this was not done in enough detail and ‘brushed over’ during discussion due to the urgent need of support………. When attempts to fully discuss client contributions with Mr Y, he was not engaging with myself or answering any telephone calls.”
Mrs X explained that Mr Y stopped returning calls or engaging with the social worker once he became aware of the charge. She said he was adamant he would not have agreed to the care package if he had known about the charge.
Mrs X complained to the Council in May 2021. Its response said Mr Y’s financial assessment was completed in May 2020 just before the care agency was commissioned.
Mr Y was advised care was chargeable before support started, however he then stopped speaking to the social worker before there could be further discussion.
The waiver panel heard the case in October 2020 and the outcome was that the charges were valid. The social worker never said a positive outcome would be guaranteed. The Council was sorry that no-one contacted her or Mr Y to tell them the panel’s decision.
We asked the Council to send us evidence of discussions it had with Mr Y about charges for his care and support. The Council sent us: a copy of the social care assessment which said nothing about charging.
a case note dated August 2020 of a discussion between Mr Y’s social worker and one of his support workers which said Mr Y was clear he was not willing to pay the charge A case note dated September 2020 of a call between the social worker and Mrs X about the charge. The social worker told Mrs X he had mentioned the charge to Mr Y at the time of the social care assessment, but not in depth and he hoped Mr X would accept a charge once he had met the support worker.
The outstanding charge owed is £285.
Findings
I consider it is likely that Mr Y was given brief information about charging at the time of the assessment but not in any detail as set out in the social worker’s note to the panel when he asked for the charge to be waived. There should in my view have been a written record of the information the social worker gave Mr Y about charging at the time of his social care assessment. Mr Y or Mrs X should have received a standard booklet or leaflet about charges for social care services. The social worker should have been documented in Mr Y’s case records that they had provided standard charging information by way of a booklet or leaflet.
Paragraphs 8.2 and 8.3 of CSSG says people have a right to receive information so they can understand the charge. The social worker accepted he had not followed this up with Mr Y. While I appreciate Mr Y may have been disengaging with council services, the social worker could have sent standard information about charging to Mr Y in the post, or discussed the charge with Mrs X with Mr Y’s consent. Discussions should have taken place and information should have been sent before care started to enable Mr Y to make an informed choice about accepting care and support. The failure to have a full discussion with Mr Y and/or Mrs X about the charge before care started was therefore fault.
The charge was formally communicated to Mrs X when she received a copy of the finance team’s letter in July. But this was too late in my view as it was several months after care started and so did not allow Mrs X or Mr Y to make an informed choice about care and to budget for the charge accordingly. It caused avoidable distress.
Mrs X considers Mr Y should not have to pay the charge at all. I do not agree. Care is chargeable and Mr Y did receive a service which the Council was entitled to charge for. And I have found that he was made aware of the charge, although the discussion was not detailed enough and not recorded on the social care assessment. In this case it is not proportionate to waive the whole charge.
Agreed action
I found fault by the Council as there was a failure to provide appropriate information about the charge at the right time. This caused avoidable distress of receiving a bill for several weeks charge. Within one month of my final decision, the Council will apologise and reduce the bill by £100 to reflect the avoidable distress.
Final decision
The Council was at fault because it gave inadequate information about care charges. It has agreed appropriate action to remedy the distress. I have completed the investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman