Council criticised after care home charges for care it could not show it provided

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGO) has criticised a council after a care home it contracted with charged a vulnerable dementia patient for care it could not prove it had provided.

The Ombudsman said the woman had been placed in Haresbrook Park care home when she was discharged from hospital in January 2015.

Following an investigation the LGO found that Worcestershire County Council had failed to assess the woman’s needs properly, including her mental capacity, following her move.

“Because of this flawed assessment, the council wrongly regarded the woman as capable of self-funding her own care,” the Ombudsman said.

The investigation concluded that although the woman had the savings to fund her own care, she had no capacity to do so and no-one to manage her finances.

“Despite this, and contrary to the law, the council stopped paying for the woman’s care,” the LGO said.

The care home increased its fees by £700 a week from £500 to £1,200 three months after the council stopped funding the woman’s care.

It also backdated the increase - something the Ombudsman said it was particularly critical of “as there was no evidence the care home provided any increased care for the backdated period”.

The home therefore charged a vulnerable woman several thousands of pounds for a service it never delivered, the LGO added.

The Ombudsman said the care home had claimed the increase was due to the woman’s care needs, but when challenged could provide little evidence the extra care was either needed or delivered.

The LGO added that there was nothing in the home’s own contract to suggest the woman’s fees could be reviewed mid-year.

The woman’s son was unable to pay for his mother’s care as he did not have access to her funds. He contacted the county council, which reassessed his mother.

By the end of June 2016 Worcestershire had agreed to pay the care provider at its standard rate, but this still left the woman to pay the difference.

The LGO said the county council had failed to assume responsibility to either pay for all the care charges or challenge the care provider’s increase in care charges. “It should not have left the son unsupported when the provider continued to invoice him.”

The son asked the care home to reassess his mother as he thought she was more settled and did not need one-to-one care. The home said she could not be left alone and needed the extra support, but could not provide any record of the support it actually gave his mother when he requested it, the Ombudsman found.

At the same time the son attempted to become a court-appointed deputy to manage her financial affairs. However, his mother died before this was completed. As she died without leaving a will he then had to gain probate.

According to the LGO, the care home threatened to refer the outstanding debt to solicitors following the woman’s death even before probate had been granted.

The council has agreed to apologise to the son and pay him £1,000 in recognition of the distress caused by its actions.

It will also arrange for the care home to reissue invoices for the care provided between March and August 2015, removing the £700 a week it made for one-to-one care. The council should ensure whatever credit is outstanding is refunded to the woman’s estate, the LGO said.

The Ombudsman’s report also made a number of recommendations for the county council to improve working with the hospital and social workers and should review whether it works with the care provider in future.

Michael King, Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, said: “Worcestershire County Council remained responsible for this woman’s care throughout her time at the care home. Neither the woman nor her family were in any position to arrange her care for her, and were certainly in no position to pay for it.

“Had social workers assessed her needs properly from the outset, much of the distress caused to the family could have been avoided. Instead the council left the woman and her family to deal with the care home alone.

“I am pleased the council has agreed with my recommendations and now urge it to learn from this case to ensure others are not similarly affected.”