Care providers contract, is it unfair?

Peterpan18

My father in law became rather ill and home care was arranged for him. A contract was signed and payment in advance made £700+..

12 days later he was taken into hospital, the care company was informed immediately and stopped his service.
After 2 weeks in hospital and a few days in a Hospice he passed away due to cancer.

I have worked out that his care account would have been about £450 in credit. The care company initially said something to the effect they would cancel his care arrangements and provide a refund.

After chasing this for almost two months the care providers has said there is no refund due and referred me to a section in the contract that says:-

"In the case of the temporary suspension of the service users service, for whatever reason, the fees payable during the absence, will be full fees subject to maximum period of. Absences of more than 6 weeks will be will be individually negotiated" (the section that says-maximum period of. Absences of, is exactly as it appears in the contract)

Is this fair or right as I feel the family have been unfairly denied the promised refund.

Aylesbury_Duck

I can see that from the care company's point of view, immediate suspension of care will cost them because they will have rostered care and could have deployed those carers' hours to another client.  That they still charge for a period seems perfectly reasonable, and as it seems, contractual.  It seems as if there's an error in the contract wording, and I suspect that sentence should end "maximum period of 6 weeks", which would seem sensible given the sentence that follows.  

In my view, it seems fair and right because I suspect no refund is due and I doubt one was specifically promised.  Was a refund actually promised, or was it a case of them saying they'd cancel his care arrangements and implying they'd provide a refund if a refund was due?

Manxman_in_exile

I think I agree with @Aylesbury_Duck.

What did the advance payment of £700 cover?  Was it, for example, for a complete month in advance or simply a payment on account?

Don't want to be insensitive, but was it clear it was a "temporary suspension"?

Peterpan18

@Aylesbury_Duck,
I wasn't present at the original discussion, when they were informed the company of him going into hospital. I think it was when they were informed of his passing that .the assistant manager said they would close the file and, I think she said, she would see about a refund.
I agree that the contract wording is probably a "typo".
It was clear from the cut short visits and conversations with the visiting staff that they were short of staff, mainly due to illness and were finding it extremely difficult to cover every client on time and for the full time that had been charged.

I feel a bit angry that a company can keep your money even though they have not provided the contracted for service. It was very clear that they were struggling to service the client base they already had. So father in laws passing not only gained them £450 for nothing it also eased their staffing problems.
I would mind so much if they deducted an admin fee or early cancelation charge but to withhold the whole amount just seems so wrong and unfair.

@Manxman_in_exile,
 the £702 covered a period of 4 weeks, the first for 6 days and then a further three weeks of 7 day care, so it was a month in advance. There were supposed to provide two, half hour visits a day, AM & PM. They failed to provide the full half hour on 3 or 4 occasions due to staff shortages.

From my perspective I was sure he was not going to come home again but from a close relatives point of view no one wanted to even consider he would not get better and come home, a hope we have all have when an elderly parent is taken into hospital he was 82. I think they may have suspended the care, at least until he was moved to a Hospice.

Aylesbury_Duck

Peterpan18 said:

@Aylesbury_Duck,
I wasn't present at the original discussion, when they were informed the company of him going into hospital. I think it was when they were informed of his passing that .the assistant manager said they would close the file and, I think she said, she would see about a refund.
I agree that the contract wording is probably a "typo".
It was clear from the cut short visits and conversations with the visiting staff that they were short of staff, mainly due to illness and were finding it extremely difficult to cover every client on time and for the full time that had been charged.

I feel a bit angry that a company can keep your money even though they have not provided the contracted for service. It was very clear that they were struggling to service the client base they already had. So father in laws passing not only gained them £450 for nothing it also eased their staffing problems.
I would mind so much if they deducted an admin fee or early cancelation charge but to withhold the whole amount just seems so wrong and unfair.

@Manxman_in_exile,
 the £702 covered a period of 4 weeks, the first for 6 days and then a further three weeks of 7 day care, so it was a month in advance. There were supposed to provide two, half hour visits a day, AM & PM. They failed to provide the full half hour on 3 or 4 occasions due to staff shortages.

From my perspective I was sure he was not going to come home again but from a close relatives point of view no one wanted to even consider he would not get better and come home, a hope we have all have when an elderly parent is taken into hospital he was 82. I think they may have suspended the care, at least until he was moved to a Hospice.

I'd treat these two issues separately.  On the matter of there being no refund due, you can't really argue with the contract, certainly not on the basis of what you think their staffing or business model was like.  You've made a big leap to assume they gained £450 for nothing and eased their staffing problems - you have no evidence that either is true (although your suspicions may be correct), and that's why I don't think that angle is pursuable. 

On the other hand, the second part is something the family may wish to pursue.  If it's documented that you paid for care that wasn't provided whilst the client was alive, then a refund is owed for that missing service.

Manxman_in_exile

Aylesbury_Duck said:

On the other hand, the second part is something the family may wish to pursue.  If it's documented that you paid for care that wasn't provided whilst the client was alive, then a refund is owed for that missing service.

Agree with that.

Peterpan18

Manxman_in_exile said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

On the other hand, the second part is something the family may wish to pursue.  If it's documented that you paid for care that wasn't provided whilst the client was alive, then a refund is owed for that missing service.

Agree with that.

Thank you both for your input and opinion.
As far as the "second part" is concerned, it wasn't dealt with at the time and TBH we are talking £20 or less so hardly worth bothering about considering all the other associated things that have to be dealt with. So with your opinion in mind I think we move on, thanks again.