The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs D’s care provider charging for care. This is because the Care Provider has remedied the injustice caused by fault and we are satisfied with this remedy.
The complaint
Mrs C complained about her mother’s, Mrs D’s, care provider. Mrs C complains: Mrs D’s care provider did not provide a contract until 1 year 3 months after Mrs D had moved into the home and obtained an unauthorised signature.
There was no 28-day notification or agreement about fee increases.
There was poor communication and inaccurate accounting.
The Care Provider provided false statements to cover up errors and failed to follow procedures.
The Care Provider had no empathy and no accountability.
Mrs C wants the Care Provider to reimburse Mrs D monies she has paid when the breaches of contract occurred. Provide a financial payment for failing to have a valid contract in place and for soliciting a signature from Mrs D without her, Mrs D’s Power of Attorney’s, agreement.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about adult social care providers. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe: the action has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the care provider, or it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B(8) and (9))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council commissioned care from the Provider on Mrs D’s behalf from September 2022 until 31 March 2023 when the NHS took over funding. The Care Provider should not have issued invoices for £1000 per month during the period there was a Deferred Payment Agreement (DPA) in place with the Council, but it quickly corrected this. There was no need for a contract during this period as it was either commissioned by the Council or the NHS.
From August 2023 Mrs D became a self-funder so there should have been a new contract. Her house had been sold so there was no need or possibility of an ongoing DPA. Mrs C assumed the rate should have stayed the same as the early 2023 rate but there is no foundation for this. The Care Provider agreed a lower temporary rate for the period 28 September -25 October despite it saying it told Mrs C of the prevailing rate of £1100 per week.
The rate agreed in the signed contract on 5 December was £1075 per week. This included a small concession which was agreed when the placement became privately funded on 31 August 2023. The Care Provider notified Mrs C of the annual increase on 25 January with affect from 26 February 2024.
Mrs D was deemed to have capacity to sigh a contract /placement agreement in September 2022. The existence of LPA is not relevant because it does not remove the donor’s right to make decisions if they are able to do so.
There were funding changes, but the Care Provider did not need to tell Mrs C about a private fee increase in February 2023 because Mrs D was charged at the Council rate for that period. Even though Mrs D had a DPA in place at the time, she was eligible to be charged at the full private rate, so she has benefitted from the lower rate for longer.
If there had been no delay in the Care Provider issuing a contract Mrs D would have paid more than she has actually been charged. Although the Care Provider should have issued a new contract in August/September 2023, it did not do this until December 2023. In the meantime, the Care Provider had reduced the rate of charge below the prevailing rate, and we would say that was for goodwill and to reflect the delay in issuing a contract. It also discounted the rate by £35 from then until February 2024, so Mrs D has been charged less than she would have otherwise.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs C’s complaint because we are satisfied the Care Provider has remedied the fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman