An elderly woman charged for years of care she should have received for free has received a refund from the largest local authority in the county.

Kent County Council (KCC) has been recommended to pay more than £18,000 and has since updated processes to ensure it does not happen again.

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) found for the complainant, Ms F, who said her mother was charged a contribution for her residential care fees between 2002 and 2021.

The ombudsman ruled the patient, known in the case as Mrs B, was entitled to free mental health care.

Ms F also complained KCC did not explain how it had calculated the refund or whether it included interest.

She spent £2,500 on lawyers to obtain information before she could lodge a complaint to KCC, which caused her “distress, time and trouble”.

KCC said it “regrets any distress” but declined to comment on an individual case.

Under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983, councils and NHS commissioners are duty-bound to provide free aftercare for people detained under certain sections of the law.

The ombudsman’s report said Mrs B was originally detained by another local authority in the 1980s.

In 1992, she was placed in a facility in the KCC catchment with her care funded under previous social security benefits rules.

Under the Health and Social Care Act 2001, funding for Mrs B’s placement was transferred to KCC in April 2002.

Having assessed Mrs B’s financial situation, she was charged a contribution to the costs of her residential care.

It took too long to respond to her queries and complaint and did not provide her with enough information

However, the ombudsman noted that Mrs B’s section 117 status was not taken into consideration during that assessment.

After Mrs B was moved to a different care home in the KCC area in 2021 it was noted she had been entitled to free care. The authority backdated a nil contribution from April 2018.

At this point, Ms F wrote to KCC and was told in July 2022 that paperwork was not available to establish when her free aftercare should have started but it was “very likely” it dated back many years.

After Ms F complained to the ombudsman, KCC was found to be at fault.

The ombudsman noted: “It [the council] has now refunded her. But it took too long to respond to Ms F’s queries and complaint and did not provide her with enough information to enable her to check the refunded amount. This has caused her time and trouble.”

KCC was recommended to pay £17,368.50 as an interest payment on contributions she wrongly made; £700 to remedy distress caused and £300 to Ms F to acknowledge her time and trouble.

A council statement said: “KCC regrets any distress this matter has caused.

“The council has recently reviewed and updated its procedures in relation to Section 117 aftercare to improve the accuracy of the recording and monitoring of people the council supports who are eligible for S117 aftercare with the aim of preventing people from being charged in error.”

KCC has agreed to abide by the ombudsman’s recommendations.