Social services chiefs have been hit by two damning reports criticising them for overcharging an elderly blind woman for her care and failing to properly support a homeless teenager.

The local government ombudsman has issued two highly critical reports which detail a series of failings and uphold separate complaints made about Kent County Council.

And the conclusions of one is set to have potentially far-reaching consequences for the council.

The ombudsman has ordered the authority to review other cases where it is likely to have wrongly over-charged elderly residents for care over a period of 18 months.

The county council fears that could involve refunding money that it has no budget for. Although it is unclear how much could be involved, the overall sum could run into thousands.

The complaint that has sparked the review of other cases centred on concerns about the care provided for a blind woman in her nineties - identified only as Mrs B - who lives alone.

She needed care after a fall so she could recover at home. The ombudsman upheld a complaint from her son that the council charged for care services before telling her what it would cost, breaching government guidelines.

At the time, the council operated a "provisional charging" policy in which all clients were told they would be charged £39 a week for their care.

The ombudsman said the authority had wrongly charged for care because it did not complete a financial assessment until the following month and then only told the woman the outcome of that assessment another month later.

The report recommended waiving her charge of £380 and giving the woman's son £200 in compensation.

Nigel Ellis, executive director of investigations for the ombudsman, said:
"Government policy is clear on the matter of provisional charging for care services - it explicitly states no charge should be applied before the user has been told about the assessment of those charges. We want to remind other councils of the policy and ensure that they are correctly following guidelines."

Cllr Graham Gibbens (Con), cabinet member for adult services, said: "We accept the findings of the report and we have apologised for the poor communication with Ms B about her care package.

"We introduced the provisional charging policy for home care services in good faith. We believe the government guidance about care charging is unclear."

He added: "We have now withdrawn provisional charging in response to recommendations by the ombudsman and have agreed to refund all those affected between April 2011 and December 2012 by this policy.

"This is a complex case and it is going to involve officers going through a lot of records to find out exactly who is affected and who will be eligible for a refund so at the moment we are unable to put figures on it."

In the second report, the ombudsman criticises KCC over the way it dealt with the care of a young teenage boy made homeless.

The report said the council failed to provide proper support to the boy, who became homeless after his parents abandoned him.

It upholds his complaint that he was let down by the council, when it failed to deal with his requests for accommodation and welfare support over two years.

The ombudsman's investigation found the council did not properly assess whether he should be a 'looked after' child under its care.

Because of the fault of the council, this vulnerable person was denied access to key welfare services he was entitled to" - Nigel Ellis

The council should have clearly explained the benefits of becoming a looked after child but there was no record of this taking place.

Nigel Ellis, executive director for investigations at the LGO, said:"Because of the fault of the council, this vulnerable person was denied access to key welfare services he was entitled to and that the council has a duty to provide."

It should also set aside £3,000 for the injustice caused.

The council has agreed to recommendations made by the LGO.

In a statement, Cllr Jenny Whittle (Con), cabinet member for children's services, said:
"Kent County Council is committed to resolving matters to make sure this vulnerable young person is given the help he needs.

"While we feel the report does not fully reflect the complexities of the case, we do accept that Mr X should have been designated a child in care. Our priority is to make sure this young man gets the support he needs as a care leaver."