By Edward Trower-
Norfolk council has agreed to launch an investigation into whether more care home residents have been incorrectly charged a top-up fee.
The investigation was sparked after a family were overcharged for their mother’s care, in very disappointing findings. Over charge for services in any organisation smacks of corruption, although there are sometimes incidences of negligence that can interfere with any rash conclusion of corruption.The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman concluded that the council failed to inform , the service user’s son, referred to in this article as mr.C, about top-up fees and overlooked his mother’s, Mrs B, true capital when charging the family for her care.
The report, seen by The Eye Of Media.Com, reveals how the woman, whose identity cannot be revealed, had a social worker who said she provided Mr C with two brochures and explained that, once his mother’s capital fell below the £23,250 threshold, the council would pay £460.71 a week towards his mother’s care. She also said that Mr C was informed about top-up fees during the same meeting. However, Mr C claimed that he did not receive the brochures and was not informed about top-up fees.
Mr C had been seeking a suitable home for his mother priced in the region of £700-£825 a week. He was unaware that his mother’s indicative personal budget was just over £460. He stated that he would not have placed his mother in a home that was not affordable if he had been given the correct information.
Despite statutory guidance stating that a council must disregard the value of a person’s home for twelve weeks when they first enter a care home as a permanent resident, Norfolk Council incorporated mrs B property in their assessment. The result of disregarding the value of Mrs B’s home meant that her capital fell below £23,250. The Ombudsman asserted that the council under the Care Act 2014 were obliged to offer at least one residential care home option that was affordable within Mrs B’s personal budget for residential care homes.
FAILURE
The council failed to offer this and did not accept that it had a duty, wrongly arguing that the woman’s capital was above £23,250. The local authority then asked for a top-up fee during the initial twelve weeks while the house was being sold.
However, following the Ombudsman’s recommendations, the council agreed to apologise to the family and pay Mr C £300. The local authority has also vowed to check if it had wrongly charged other people in the county.
A Norfolk Council spokesman said in a steament: “We acknowledge the distress and worry which was caused as a result of an error on our part and have apologised unreservedly.
“We fully respect the outcome of the Local Government Ombudsman investigation and have agreed to take action which the Ombudsman regards as providing a satisfactory remedy for the complaint.
“While we had already waived the top up fee, we will be putting in place new measures, including reviewing our guidance and training for staff to ensure lessons are learned.
“We will also be reviewing whether there have been similar cases, in the last 12 months. This review is underway and we will be reporting our findings to the LGO in in late spring/early summer.”
Michael King, Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, said: “Councils should not take into account the value of a person’s property when making assessments of people’s ability to pay for their care in a care home during the first twelve weeks of their stay.
“If this means a person’s capital falls below the threshold of £23,250, the council should offer an affordable care home that does not require a top-up fee.”
INCORRECT INFORMATION
Councils have incorrectly charged families for social care services in recent months, or have failed to provide clear information about accommodation costs. Last month, the Ombudsman found that social workers from North Yorkshire failed to provide clear detail about social care fees relating to accommodation on two separate occasions.In the first instance, the council’s actions were judged to be “confused and confusing” as they misinformed a woman about the charges for her mother’s care. In addition to providing incorrect personal budgets, North Yorkshire were unable to find a placement that did not include a top-up fee. It then failed to arrange a top-up agreement, resulting in the family paying more for their mother’s care.
In the second case, the same council failed to provide a family with an affordable option to move their mother into a nursing home which specialised in caring for people with dementia. Once again, the council was unable to secure a top-up agreement with the family.
