The council has been forced to apologise after unfairly demanding more than £2,500 from a blind woman for her care.

Reading Borough Council (RBC) had asked Miss B – a pseudonym to protect her identity – to pay £2,513.18 in back payments, which it said she owed for the support.

As a result of the sudden charges, Miss B was forced to cancel the care package she had received for several years due to being unable to pay.

READ MORE: Reading Borough Council community action line has gone live

But a Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGO) inspector has now ruled that the council failed to regularly reassess her finances to decide what contribution she should make to her care.

It also failed to do enough to ensure Miss B knew how to report changes to her financial situation.

Mr X, complaining to the LGO on behalf of Miss B said the council had unfairly asked her to pay backdated charges for her care.

The LGO investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’.

Its investigator upheld the complaint, stating: “There was fault by the council which caused injustice to Miss B.”

The council agreed to remedy the injustice by:

  • Apologising to Miss B for the failings identified in this case
  • Making a payment of £100 to Miss B for the distress caused by those failings
  • Writing off the full amount outstanding and confirming in writing to Miss B that it has done so.

A spokesman for the council said: “The council fully accepts the ombudsman’s report and recommendations in full.

“We have completed all of the ombudsman’s recommendations and we are very sorry for any distress caused to Miss B. We have apologised and we have written off the outstanding amount.

“Moving forward we have reviewed how we share information with people in receipt of care services, to ensure they are fully aware of the charges that may apply to them.

“We have also reviewed and strengthened our financial assessment procedures.”

What happened?

Miss B is registered blind and had received a package of care for several years, which she did not pay towards.

The council confirmed in February 2015 that she did not have to contribute to the cost of her care.

In July 2017, Miss B’s benefits increased. She notified the council and was informed that the increase would not affect her situation.

A year later, the council reviewed Miss B’s financial situation again and decided she should have been contributing £66.69 a week towards the cost of her care as her benefits had increased since July 2017.

READ MORE: Reading Borough Council delays decision on three businesses licences amid coronavirus

RBC told Miss B that she would have to pay backdated charges of £2,513.18.

Miss B explained she had notified the housing benefit team when her benefits increased and had been told that she didn’t need to let anyone else know.

She said that she could not afford to pay towards her care or to pay the backdated charges and she cancelled her care package.

The council told Miss B that she should have reported the increase in benefits to its Financial Assessment and Benefits team. It said that it had told her this when it wrote to her in February 2015.

The MP steps in

Miss B contacted her Member of Parliament (MP) who made a complaint to the council on her behalf.

He told the council that Miss B disputed having received a letter in February 2015 about how to report changes to her benefits.

The MP said that Miss B believed the council should have done more to make sure she knew that she had to notify the Financial Assessment and Benefits team, as well as the Housing Benefit team. He asked the council to cancel the backdated charges.

RBC said Miss B was still liable for the charges and that she was given information about her responsibility to inform the council of changes to her financial situation.

The ombudsman

Miss B escalated her complaint to the LGO with the support of an advocate, Mr X.

He said Miss B had no memory of the letter from February 2015 and at that time she relied on carers to read letters to her.

Mr X said the council had a duty to explain more clearly and more frequently to a blind person and that it should cancel the backdated charges.

In the council’s response, it said that it was a reasonable assumption for Miss B to think that departments within the council would communicate information to each other, but that this was not always the case.

It agreed to write off 50 per cent of the backdated invoice, leaving a total balance of £1,256.59 to pay.

But the LGO inspector did not think this went far enough.

The inspector concluded that the council should write off all the money, compensate Miss B with £100 and apologise within four weeks of the decision, on December 12.