Date of decision: 01 June 2025
Summary
This complaint highlighted how Redbridge Council overcharged one of its clients for the care and support it provided her. It failed to explain the calculation of charges, after providing more help than needed and not reducing care inputs via the plan, promptly.
Her son, Mr X, complained on her behalf. Both Mrs Y and Mr X experienced prolonged confusion and frustration due to unclear invoices and delayed complaint responses.
What happened
In 2022, the Council assessed Mrs Y’s care needs and arranged daily visits for personal care as part of a care package. She had limited use of one arm. She had 30 minutes visiting care coming in daily.
Despite numerous requests by Mrs Y to reduce visits to three times per week (which were agreed) and clear evidence in invoices that visits were shorter than she was being billed for, the Council continued to overcharge—sometimes charging for one hour when visits had lasted just 15 minutes. A chunk of invoices was waived by the Council.
Mr X contacted the Council in March, April and May 2023 to dispute these invoices which were incorrect. He reiterated that the care workers stayed fifteen minutes, not an hour.
Repeated complaints surrounding the same issue led to cancellations and reissue of invoices, for 3 x 30 minute visits a week, but confusion persisted. Mr X’s position was that 45 mins a week should be the maximum charged for. Administrative failings, inaccurate records, and lack of internal communication following up the agreed reductions in care had resulted in unresolved debt and further complaints through to early 2024.
The Council only accurately recalculated charges after direct intervention and correspondence after Mr X was advised to formally complain on behalf of Mrs Y.
What was found
Redbridge Council failed to follow statutory duties by not billing transparently or promptly adjusting care charges to reflect actual provision. They failed accurately to bill Mrs Y which resulted in her being overcharged for the care she received.
There were significant delays in responding to complaints and poor communication about how charges related to its policy. Mrs Y initially disputed the charges in May 2022 but the issue was not resolved until May 2024, which is an unacceptable delay.
The recipient was overcharged for 35 weeks, creating distress and uncertainty.
The Ombudsman ordered the Council to apologise, to pay £150 each to the complainant and service user for frustration and uncertainty, revise historic invoices to reflect actual care provided, and train staff to ensure future complaint responses meet statutory standards.
Points to note for councils, professionals, people using services and their carers, advocacy groups and members of the public
The Care Act 2014 sets out the legal framework for charging. It gives councils the power to charge for care and support services arranged or provided. These charges must comply with the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 and cannot exceed the actual costs incurred by the council.
The report does not contend with the possibility that the Council WAS responsible, contractually, for PAYING 1 hour charges, having possibly agreed with the provider that it could bill for the hour, regardless of the time that its staff had been allowed to provide; we’ve seen a similar stance taken in Ombudsman’s investigations, where the client’s autonomy was cited as the reason for that approach. We remember thinking at the time that if people know that they are going to be charged for an hour, they’d probably prefer to get the hour, rather than just not!
Financial assessments must ensure that individuals are left with at least the minimum income guarantee, and all processes around charging need to be transparent and clear so people understand what they are being charged for. Councils must promptly and accurately adjust billing in response to changes in assessed need or actual care provision, and communicate changes or corrections clearly to affected individuals and their representatives. Delayed responses or unclear communication can cause avoidable distress and undermine trust, and prompt remedial action is essential if errors are identified.
Where actual delivery diverges from the care plan, prompt reconciliation is not just good practice but a legal expectation – either the commissioner is not getting what the Council is paying for or the person’s needs have possibly changed. The Ombudsman’s report does not robustly address the Council’s ongoing failure throughout the period in question to monitor and correct mismatches between planned and delivered care.
If a capacitated person is refusing care, then they ought not to be getting it, but if they receive it and then expect not to have to pay for it, there is a mismatch there that ought to lead to a formal review and revision of the care plan.
Broader implications include the need for councils to invest significantly in integrated recording systems, routine care plan reviews, and staff awareness regarding both the specifics of the Care Act and their obligation to proactively manage and explain care charges. Councils should also embed a practice of immediate correction and notification whenever errors in charging or service delivery are identified, against the formal wording of the contract in play.
Without these measures, recurring injustice and challenge to transparency will persist within adult social care financial systems.
Please use the following link if you want to read the original Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s London Borough of Redbridge (24 012 196) 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!