A care home has been criticised by the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) after refusing to repay more than £6,000 to a bereaved family.

Despite an independent investigation, the Rainham care home has failed to hand over £6,500 it owes to a family of a man it cared for.

The Cherry Acre Residential Home, in Berengrave Lane, owes the cash to the family of a former resident after it wrongly charged the man a retrospective ‘top up’ fee covering a period during which Medway Council paid for his care.

The man, who has not been named, had been living at the home as a self-funding client, but when his money ran out, Medway Council said it would step in and fund his placement on a ‘deferred loan’ agreement until he had sold his home.

At the same time the council agreed a rate with the provider, which was less than the amount the man had been paying.

Some time later, after he had sold his home and was able to fund his own care, the provider charged him an extra ‘top up’ amount.

"The care provider has been given numerous opportunities to rectify the situation with the family yet has failed to accept it was wrong" - Dr Jane Martin

This top-up was the difference between the lower amount the authority paid during the time it agreed to fund his care and the rate the man would have paid had he continued to fund his own care during the period.

The LGO has said the care home provider should not have done this.

The home also refused to refund the man some fees he had paid in advance for a period which was then funded by the NHS.

Because the home has refused to refund the family, the LGO has issued a rare public notice highlighting its failings.

This notice comes just a month after the LGO issued a focus report into care home top-up fees, in which the ombudsman warned many people could be paying too much for their placements because of misinformation and a lack of clarity from councils and care providers.

Dr Jane Martin, Local Government Ombudsman, said: “The care provider has been given numerous opportunities to rectify the situation with the family yet has failed to accept it was wrong.

“It has shown no evidence of understanding the effect its refusal to repay the money has had on the family.

“Therefore I am issuing this Adverse Findings Notice to ensure local people are aware of the situation and can make informed decisions about choosing care.

“As highlighted in my recent Focus Report, this is a clear case of a care provider charging top-up fees ‘by the back door’ – and asking for money over and above that which it had agreed with the local council.

“I now urge the provider to revisit this family’s complaint and repay the money they are owed.”

Bosses at the care home have now been asked to repay the man’s family £6,500 for his care, and an additional £500 in recognition of their stress and anxiety.

The ombudsman’s report has been shared with health and social care regulators the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

The home was also rated inadequate and required improvement by the CQC.

A report found people were unsafe and frightened to leave their rooms.

The home cares for people with dementia, mental health illness and mobility problems and was inspected in December, 2014 and reported its findings in July.

"There were people who were frightened to leave their bedrooms, they had become isolated but staff failed to recognise this" - Inspectors

The inspectors found residents were “at risk of serious harm” and that unlawful forms of restraint had been used to control behaviour.

Inspectors noted: “Staff had a caring approach, but they lacked the skills and knowledge to recognise the culture in the home had become uncaring.

“There were people who were frightened to leave their bedrooms, they had become isolated but staff failed to recognise this.”

There were not enough staff, most of the staff were not trained and those who were only had poor training, which led to dangerous situations.

The report added: “People’s safety was being compromised in a number of areas. The arrangements that were in place to safeguard people from the risk of abuse were not adequate as incidents which should have been reported to the local authority and CQC had not been.”

Care was not reviewed to assess the change in people’s needs, such as dementia getting worse. Risks of malnutrition and dehydration were not addressed.

In April inspectors visited again.

This time there were only six residents at the home – and four of them were independent, requiring minimal help.

Safety aspects still needed improving, there were trip hazards and medicines were not being stored safely.

The leadership was also deemed inadequate.

However, there were some good points, which brought it from being inadequate to requiring improvement overall.

The treatment of staff is much better, they are now trained and respond more consistently to incidents.

They encourage residents to eat and drink where appropriate, and have made them feel more secure.

At the time, Uday Kumar, who runs the service, said: “Cherry Acre has bounced back from its troubles in December last year.

“The management and staff have worked very hard to meet requirements stipulated by the CQC.”