Rochdale council has been ordered to waive more than £7,000 in care fees after failing to provide adequate support to a ‘vulnerable’ man who was ‘unable’ to manage his own finances. An ombudsman’s investigation found the authority’s failings not only led to ‘Mr Y’ - who has autism, depression, anxiety, and short-term memory issues - racking up a ‘significant debt’, but also caused him distress.
A scathing report says the council had been aware of Mr Y’s inability to manage his finances and paperwork since 2015, yet ‘had not done enough’ to put adequate support in place’. This, it adds, had left him with a large debt which was ‘primarily of the authority’s making’.
The council must now forgo £7,558.17 in charges dating back to October 2016. It was also ordered to apologise to Mr Y for failing to maintain proper oversight of his care package and for not carrying out adequate financial reviews.
READ MORE:
The report, published by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGO) adds: “The outcome here is a substantial debt and associated distress because Mr Y did not receive adequate support in real time. The support was designed not only to support Mr Y to manage his finances and paperwork, but also to help him live independently.”
It also dismisses the council’s June 2020 finding that Mr Y understood information he had been given about arrears, and that he knew he needed a payment plan to repay the debt.
“Regardless of the result of the recent capacity assessment, Mr Y is a vulnerable person and the support the council put in place failed,” the report adds.
The council assessed Mr Y’s needs in June 2015, noting his diagnosis and the fact he wanted help to be independent and get his own home. The assessment also said he needed help with planning and decision-making. It confirmed he had eligible needs and estimated his personal budget would be £66 a week.
At his next assessment in March 2016 it was noted that Mr Y’s depression and anxiety impacted his ability to complete tasks. The report adds: “He does not recognise the need to pay bills and lacks understanding around this. He chooses not to share important correspondence with those supporting him and will throw it away. He needs support to help him understand.”
The council contacted Mr Y in April 2016 to tell him there were no charges for him to pay for his care, because his income and savings were below the limit where this becomes applicable. It then wrote to Mr Y about his care charges again in March 2017 and March 2018 - on both occasions telling he had had nothing to pay.
But a further review was carried out in July 2018 - while he was living in supported accommodation - found Mr Y was receiving benefits in the form of employment support allowance (ESA). Although it noted Mr Y was not aware he was entitled to it, he was referred for a financial reassessment.
The council wrote to Mr Y on November 1, telling Mr Y he was liable to pay care charges dating back to October 2016. Soon after it confirmed the outstanding balance was £3,634.29. A review in July 2019 found that Mr Y’s case worker (‘Officer One’) had failed to tell the council of a change in his financial circumstances, resulting in him receiving an invoice for arrears.
The officer visited Mr Y for an assessment in June 2019, where he was joined by his girlfriend and his girlfriend’s mother. They felt the care provider had not supported Mr Y, resulting in his falling into debt. Another officer reviewed Mr Y’s case in October 2019 after the previous case worker left, noting his outstanding debt was £5,692.74.
In May 2020, a new case officer (‘Officer Three’) made a request for a review of the management of Mr Y’s finances - the following month noting his debt had increased to £7,064.16 as he had still not been paying his contributions. Mr Y’s mother - ‘Ms X’ spoke with the council on June 30, complaining her son had received no bills for two years before being sent a letter with invoices covering the entire period.
She emailed the council on April 6, 2021 asking it to waive the debt. She had complained the previous July, but received no written reply, so assumed the authority was dealing with it. However, Mr Y had received final debt notices from the council on March 25.
Ms X said Mr Y was not aware he had to contribute to the cost of his care and had accrued the debt through no fault of his own, as it was the authority’s responsibility to inform him. She also claimed the council had breached its duty of care to her son as a vulnerable person.
The council apologised for taking so long to reconcile Mr Y’s arrears, but confirmed the outstanding balance now due was £7,558.17 and offered to help him to make a financial hardship application. Ms X brought Mr Y’s complaint to the Ombudsman in July 2021.
The Ombudsman upheld the complaint ‘because the council failed to maintain a proper oversight of Mr Y’s care and support and failed to carry out adequate financial reviews’. Martin Lawton, Rochdale council’s assistant director for adult social care operations, said: “We have accepted the findings of the Local Government Ombudsman and ensured the recommendations set out in the LGO report have been implemented.”
Keep up with all the latest Rochdale news with our free newsletter.
