Date of decision: 22 April 2025
Summary
The report concerns a Council’s delay in issuing a significant invoice for care fees to the executor of a deceased person’s estate. The executor, having already settled the estate and distributed funds, was later presented with a large, unexpected bill which could not be paid. The Council’s failure to notify the executor in a timely and appropriate manner caused distress and financial anxiety.
What happened
Ms Y received a care package at home, with payments collected by direct debit. In March 2020, a technical issue prevented the Council from collecting payment, and Ms Y was asked to contact the Council but did not respond. Ms Y was hospitalised before Christmas 2020 and died in early January 2021. Ms X, who had held Power of Attorney but not needed to use it in relation to Ms Y’s management of her affairs, as yet, was also executor of Ms Y’s estate, notified the Council of the death and requested details of any outstanding care fees so the debts could be settled before distributing the estate. The Council sent a very small invoice, which Ms X paid, for care between December 2020 and January 2021, and she then distributed the estate, including a large charitable donation.
Two years later, in January 2023, the Council sent Ms X a new invoice for over £2,500 for Ms Y’s care fees, followed by reminder letters and phone calls. Ms X explained the estate had already been distributed and she had no knowledge of the debt at the time of administration. After Ms Y had first been hospitalised in December 2020, the Council pointed to a telephone record it had which said a ‘neighbour rang about invoice’ in which conversation, the Council informed the neighbour about the outstanding balance. [It is not clear from the report whether the Council was using this record to say that Ms X would therefore have known about the debt, via this neighbour or whether in fact the conversation on the phone had been WITH Ms X herself].
Ms X adamantly denied any such conversation, knowledge or involvement before Ms Y’s death. In September 2024, Ms X complained to the Ombudsman. She said that she would have paid the outstanding debts after Ms Y’s death had she known about them as there was plenty of money in the executor account.
What was found
The Ombudsman found the Council at fault for several reasons. There was a nine-month delay in chasing the original unpaid care fees while Ms Y was alive. After Ms Y’s death, the Council failed to provide the executor with full details of all outstanding debts, despite a direct request. The Council relied on a vague and unsubstantiated telephone note from a neighbour as evidence that Ms X had been notified, which was not reasonable or appropriate. The telephone record did not identify the neighbour by name or say how much the debt was. The Council itself accepted that ‘a record of the conversation was made on 29/12/2020 and is lacking specificity.’ Thus, the Council was at fault for poor record keeping.
The Council’s failure to provide timely and clear information led Ms X to believe all debts had been settled, and she distributed the estate accordingly. The subsequent demand for payment caused Ms X significant distress and anxiety, as she was unable to pay the unexpected bill from her own funds.
The Ombudsman concluded that while the Council remained within the legal six-year window to recover debts under the Care Act 2014, it failed to act appropriately or in line with statutory guidance, which requires councils to consider whether it is reasonable to pursue debt recovery. The Council’s actions amounted to maladministration, causing injustice to Ms X. The Ombudsman directed the Council to apologise and confirm in writing that it would not pursue the debt.
No specific financial compensation was recommended; the remedy was the cancellation of the debt and a formal apology.
Points to note for councils, professionals, people using services and their carers, advocacy groups and members of the public
Section 69 of the Care Act 2014 allows councils to recover care fee debts (those arising after the Care Act came into force) within six years of the sum becoming due. However, statutory guidance (Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2014, Annex D) requires councils to consider whether it is appropriate to pursue debt recovery, even when legally permitted. Councils must exhaust reasonable alternatives before taking legal action and should ensure all communication with executors or those administering estates is clear, timely, and properly documented.
Councils need to provide executors with full, accurate information about outstanding debts upon request, to enable lawful administration of estates.
This case highlights the importance of robust record-keeping, prompt communication, and fair decision-making in debt recovery. Councils must not pursue individuals for care debts after estates have been lawfully distributed due to their own delays or failures in notification. Adherence to statutory guidance and principles of fairness is essential to maintain public confidence and uphold the rights of those administering estates. Councils should review their procedures to ensure timely and accurate communication with executors and to avoid causing unnecessary distress or financial risk.
Please use the following link if you want to read the original Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s London Borough of Southwark (24 011 308) 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!