Decision Date: 30 Sep 2024
Summary
Ms X raised concerns on behalf of her father, Mr Y, accusing Seraphim Home Care Ltd of overcharging and failing to complete agreed services, resulting in significant financial harm. The LGSCO recommended an immediate revision of the invoices to reflect the hours documented by Ms X.
What happened
Mr Y’s care package was arranged by the hospital when he was discharged in January 2023, but the care provider claimed to have started care only in July 2023. The provider was unable to produce records of the alleged discussions with Mr Y’s other daughter about the care start time.
The undated contract, signed by Mr Y, stated that charges would reflect the provider’s rates at the time, and that staff should sign timesheets.
Ms X raised a complaint in December 2023 after noticing discrepancies in the hours billed versus the hours shown on security footage. The provider maintained that its charges aligned with scheduled hours and tasks were completed as assigned. The care provider also said it had explained the contractual details to Ms X’s sister in January 2023 and a contract was signed by Mr Y on 5 January 2023.
Ms X continued paying only for the actual hours worked according to the security feed, leaving a large unpaid balance.
What was found
The LGSCO found that the care provider’s claim that Mr Y signed a contract in January 2023 (though it was undated) was inconsistent with its own claim that care did not begin until July 2023.
Moreover, Ms X had provided evidence of care reviews in early 2023 which made the LGSCO think that the care MUST have started in early 2023.
There was a clear lack of accurate, if any, documentation with regard to when the care services would and did begin.
The provider’s statement that it charges based on scheduled hours was unsubstantiated, as there was no clear documentation outlining how charges were to be calculated, which was considered a fault. Ms X had evidence of actual care hours from security footage, and in the absence of clear billing agreements, the provider would simply have to charge based on those recorded hours.
Accordingly, the LGSCO ordered the provider to issue a formal apology about the faults identified and issue revised invoices based on the hours Ms X recorded.
The care provider was also told to also agree on a new contract that clearly outlined how Mr Y would be charged, whether by task, hour, or for a fixed time. Until this new contract was agreed, any further invoices should reflect the actual hours attended.
Points to note for councils, professionals, people using services and their carers, advocacy groups and members of the public
The discrepancy of six months between Mr Y’s alleged signing of the contract and the beginning of care services also raises questions of why the provider delayed in providing the care service – except that reviews from early 2023 suggested that the service had in fact begun sooner.
The report is really unsatisfactory: the LGSCO does not adequately address this timeline discrepancy or appear to investigate what was really going on. Where was a manager, prepared to take responsibility for this? Where was the sister? How much was the debt?
Part 3 and Part 3A of the Local Government Act 1974 give the LGSCO powers to investigate adult social care complaints. Part 3A is for complaints about care bought directly from a care provider by the person who needs it or their representative, and includes care funded privately or with direct payments using a personal budget. This report shows how hopeless it can be for the Ombudsman to have a jurisdiction in a field where there are few organisations with contracts or people who understand contract law on either side.
Furthermore, the LGSCO seems not to have investigated nor made any conclusive statement on Mr X’s complaint that the provider failed to complete the services that WERE agreed, raising further concerns of fault that were not remedied. The security door bell would be the basis of the enforceability of the debt!
Please use the following link if you want to read the original Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s Seraphim Home Care Ltd (23 021 009) 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!