Decision Date: 28 August 2024
Summary
Ms X, the executor of her late grandmother Ms Y’s estate, complained that delays by the Council resulted in Ms Y paying £1,361.11 more for her adult social care than necessary. She also cited concerns about the Council’s delayed and inaccurate responses to her queries. After her inquiries in 2023, the Council acknowledged its mistakes and altered the charge that had been overpaid. It had apologised for the distress caused by their poor handling of the situation and said that that should be good enough.
What happened
In March 2017, Mr Z informed the Council that his mother, Ms Y, would soon fall below the upper capital limit of £23,250, prompting a financial assessment. The Council indicated it would fund Ms Y’s care starting on 26 May 2017, based on bank statements from February 2017. After Mr Z paid care fees reducing Ms Y’s capital to £21,889, he questioned the funding date, but the Council maintained it was correct. Mr Z did not follow that query up after mid-June 2017.
In March 2023, Ms X contacted the Council regarding a potential refund for Ms Y’s estate. After delays in response, she filed a formal complaint in September 2023. The Council acknowledged in March 2024 that it had not responded promptly to Mr Z’s earlier inquiries but confirmed the original funding date as correct.
However, after Ms X escalated the complaint to stage 2 in July 2024, the Council reviewed the case again and determined that the funding date should have been 14 May 2017.
This change indicated that Ms Y had overpaid for care for the short period from 14 May to 25 May, leading the Council to repay £906.11 of the overpayment, although £437.89 remained unresolved.
What was found
The LGSCO noted that while it typically does not investigate complaints made more than 12 months after the events, the circumstances warranted consideration due to the family’s previous unaddressed concerns.
Moreover, the LGSCO noted that the Council’s delays in response and failure to adequately assess the funding date were likely to be ruled as faults.
While the LGSCO did acknowledge that the Council instructed the family to inform them of any changes in Ms Y’s financial circumstances, and the family did not report the increase in care home fees, the Council could likely have resolved the issue earlier had it been more proactive. Additionally, the LGSCO stated that it would likely find fault with the delays in the Council’s responses to Ms X, both prior to her formal complaint and throughout the complaints process.
Subsequently, the Council repaid the remaining outstanding balance of £437.89 and provided an apology, which was deemed an appropriate remedy for the time and trouble of Ms X in pursuing the Council to resolve the matter.
Points to note for councils, professionals, people using services and their carers, advocacy groups, members of the public
Although the LGSCO does not typically investigate complaints made 12 months after the events in question, it is commendable that this matter was nevertheless pursued on the grounds that Mr Z’s various queries were not adequately addressed by the Council.
Such an instance suggests that it may be worthwhile to file a complaint under various terms of the Care Act even if it is submitted late. As stated in the Local Government Act 1974,sections 26B and 34D, the LGSCO takes into account broader circumstances or “good reasons”. These may include but are not limited to, the impact of unresolved issues and the reasons for any delays in raising the complaint, enabling a fair assessment and potential rectification of injustices.
Nonetheless, this seems to be a complaint that could have been easily avoided if the Council had implemented better regulatory measures for timely financial assessments, monitoring changes in care fees and ensuring responsive follow-up on inquiries.
The amount that would have been overpaid would have been the two weeks of charges that should not have been paid at a private person’s rate, because the Council should have taken over 2 weeks earlier and would have been able to buy the care in at a more advantageous rate.
Please use the following link if you want to read the original Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s Hertfordshire County Council (23 021 392) report.
If you are affected by the issues in this report, please consider asking a free, one-off question, anonymously, at a level of principle, here. Our experts’ response will give you an opinion which may then help you and the broader community, when posted.
Did you enjoy this analysis? Want to stay informed with our weekly Alert Service?
Then do click here to find out how you can receive the latest insights from experts and commentators and stay updated on key judicial decisions, ombudsmen’s reports, and critical law and policy changes, all for just £50 per YEAR and sent straight to your inbox or WhatsApp!