Decision Date: 8th September 2024
Summary
Mr X complained on behalf of his wife, Mrs X, whom he cares for. He received numerous inaccurate invoices for the day centre she attended. He reported these inaccuracies to the Council who identified an issue with their attendance input process.
What happened
Mr X was in charge of arrangements for paying in full for his wife, Mrs X, to attend a day centre twice weekly at a daily rate of £81.
The Council issued Mr X invoices every 4 weeks but they often contained inaccuracies due to Mrs X not attending when she was not well, or on holiday.
The invoices should have been amended to account for these absences.
Mr X spent considerable time trying to contact the Council regarding these inaccuracies. The finance team never answered his calls and automated messages directed him to the locality team who were unable to help him. During this time Mr X continued to receive ‘strongly worded warning letters’ about non-payment, despite his reports.
Mr X attended a carers’ focus group, run by Healthwatch England, at which he discovered other carers had experienced the same issues. Subsequently, Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council highlighting the persistent nature of the problem. In response the Council recognised problems with its process regarding attendance information and stated it was in review.
What was found
The Council’s process involved manual input of attendance information by the day centre, which was accurate. The LGSCO found fault in the failure of the Council to act upon this information resulting in inaccurate invoices being sent on a monthly basis. Had the Council acted in a timely manner and referenced data from the day centre, this injustice would likely have been avoided.
The LGSCO found that these problems were ongoing and many carers in Mr X’s position had to challenge every one of the incorrect invoices they received, which was clearly fault.
The LGSCO highlighted the fact that Mr X already paid the day centre fees in full, which was a significant amount of money and the receipt of invoices demanding more was clearly frustrating. Additionally, the LGSCO commented on the significant added stress this caused Mr X on top of the everyday pressure of a caring role.
The Council has resolved all issues regarding the outstanding charges but the LGSCO recognised Mr X’s concerns about the potential for this to reoccur. The Council’s new system, implemented in June 2024, aimed to streamline the process, sending the day centre’s data directly to the finance team. The LGSCO was satisfied that this change would improve the invoicing procedure.
As recommended by the LGSCO, the Council is to provide a written apology to Mr X and make a symbolic payment of £200 to reflect the injustice caused.
Points to note for councils, professionals, people using services and their carers, advocacy groups and members of the public
This is a straightforward example of the sort of complaint that has no real Care Act issue in it, other than the principle that one can’t be charged for something that one has not used.
In fact, even that is not so clear a principle as one would assume: it might be that the services from the day care centre were chargeable to the Council who was commissioning it – whether or not the person attended, and if that had been made clear to the client, then the fact that the Council had to pay anyway could be enough of a legal justification for passing on that cost.
When one thinks about it, one has to pay rent when one is on holiday; one has to pay for one’s gym membership, whether or not one goes.
So in a situation where a person has been entitled to something but hasn’t used it, it is always necessary to check the contract. And of course if the person is paying for the service through direct payments, they will be their own commissioner, and bound by the contract that is in place between them and the day centre.
The reason this person was paying the day centre directly appears not to have been because it was a direct payment arrangement that governed the fee, but perhaps because the day centre was content to act as the collection agent for the Council’s social care charges, under its own contract with the Council.
Please use the following link if you want to read the original Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s Gloucestershire County Council (23 020 540) 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!