Council sorry as tenant billed for empty rooms

SOMERSET County Council has been ordered to apologise after forcing a young man in supported housing to pay the entire electricity bill for the property.

The man in question, known only as Mr X, was originally told when he moved into supported accommodation that he would only be liable for one-third of the electricity bill in the three-person home.

His father, known as Mr C, complained to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman after it emerged Mr X was being charged the whole bill – the equivalent of around £300 per month.

He also complained about the amount of money his son had spent on furniture in the communal areas, the diet his son had been receiving, the high turnover of care staff within the home, and alleged that he had been “banned” from visiting at one stage. The county council has apologised and agreed to refund hundreds of pounds from the bills and the cost of the furniture.

The ombudsman exists to investigate allegations of “maladministration” and “service failure” in the public sector.

Mr X, who has a range of learning difficulties as well as emotional and behavioural problems, moved into the supported living accommodation, which has not been identified, in late 2020.

Soon after moving in, Mr C raised concerns that his son’s spending was not being properly recorded by care staff, violating his agreed education and health care plan (EHCP) and leaving Mr X “vulnerable and at risk of abuse”.

The care provider initially provided Mr C with statements showing his son’s spending but stopped doing this after a few months.

The company and council claimed Mr X had asked them to stop providing these statement but the ombudsman found “no documentary evidence” to support this claim.

These issues reached a head in October 2021 when Mr C found a total of £670 had been withdrawn from Mr X’s account within the previous month, leading to a formal safeguarding investigation.

This investigation found that claims of “financial abuse by staff cannot be substantiated”, arguing that Mr X had access to his own bank account and did not keep his own records of all his spending.

The property in which Mr X lived was designed to accommodate three people, but there was a “significant delay” in finding two other residents.

The care provider therefore asked Mr X to pay the entire electricity bill of £300 per month himself, which Mr C says was “unfair”, arguing it was “not his son’s fault that the council had been unable to find more service users”.

Mr C also found that his son had spent more than £800 on items for the shared kitchen and dining area, including a table and chair set – with the care provider agreeing to reimburse Mr X to the tune of £300, but ultimately not making the payment.

The ombudsman found the council had “failed to properly explain” how the energy bills would be split if the house was not fully occupied.

The investigation also found that the care provider had stopped sending Mr X copies of his son’s meal plans, and that the “high turnover of supervisors” meant the staff were not properly equipped for dealing with the complexity of his condition.

However, the ombudsman did not uphold Mr C’s claim that he had been banned from visiting his son, finding that visits continued even after claims had been made that Mr C was “aggressive with care staff”.

The ombudsman ruled that the council should pay £800 in compensation – £500 to Mr C for the “distress” he experienced and the time he spent “dealing with the faults identified”, and £300 to Mr X for the cost of the furniture.

The council has confirmed it had complied with this request and would ensure that similar misunderstandings did not occur again.

A spokesman said: “The wellbeing of residents is always our top priority. We work closely with partners and the care community and strive to deliver consistently high quality services.

“On this occasion, we didn’t get it right and have apologised to our service user and their family. We accept the ruling of the ombudsman and have implemented all the recommendations outlined, including sharing lessons learned with our staff and the care provider.

“The ombudsman has now written to us to confirm they are satisfied with our response.”