Admin fee consultation user testing - People Bank Involvement

What our user testers said 

How we responded

1. Will the people impacted by the proposal know the survey is relevant to them?

1. We are writing directly to those we already know who will be affected by the proposal and we’re working with our comms team to promote it to others too.

2. Some people may not know what ‘invoice’ means.

2. The following line has been added: “Invoices tell people how much to pay for their care and when they must pay by.”

3. The information about why we are proposing an admin fee is confusing.

3. This information has been simplified to remove duplication and make the reason for the proposal clearer.

4. Some of the dates regarding when the survey closes, and when decisions would be made were unclear.

4. Dates have been given further clarification.

5. The ‘What happens now’ section feels unnecessary and results in having too much information to read.

5. This section is needed so that it’s clear who would be affected by the proposal. The heading of this section  has changed to ‘Who would be affected’, to clarify the purpose of the information, and the information in this section has been amended.

6. The information on why we are proposing the fee is repeating information already mentioned in the section about the Council’s financial situation and need to make savings.

6. General information about the Council’s finances has been reduced. The section now focuses specifically on the savings that could be achieved by the proposal.

7. In the online version, the instructions on taking part make it unclear that you are already at the start of the survey.

7. These instructions have been removed, as they are unnecessary for the online version.

8. Add in Easy Read under the examples of alternative formats available to request.

8. Easy Read added as an example on the paper version. An easy read version will be available online.

9. Add the contact details onto the front page of the paper version.

9. The structure of the front page doesn’t allow enough room to fit a contact details section, but a small line has been added to direct people to the relevant page.

10. Are there any predictions about how this would be affected by changes in government funding to benefits?

10. It is unlikely that anyone receiving welfare benefits would be affected by the proposal as they are unlikely to fully fund the cost of their care.

11. Is the proposed fee amount set in stone or open to negotiation in the consultation?

11. The cost is not open to negotiation, as it is the current cost to the Council for arranging care. The fee amount has been removed from the introduction of the survey; to make it clearer the consultation is about the proposal to charge and not how much to charge.

12.  Is ‘Tech enabled care’ a common term, or should there be other examples of what we mean by that?

12. Examples of what we mean by ‘tech-enabled care’ added.

13. If an adult who fully funds their care receives an annual review, which results in a change to their care, will they be charged?

13. Information has been added to make clear that if a review results in change to someone’s care, there is no charge.

14. The information doesn’t state how much notice someone is given about when the charges would start.

14. Until a decision is made, we are unable to say exactly when the changes will start. A sentence has been added to explain there will be a notice period given before any changes are introduced.

15. The breakdown of costs recovered makes them feel minimal.

15. A total costs recovered amount has been added to the ‘why are we proposing to make changes’ section.

16. The financial figures relating to people accessing other non-residential care appear incorrect.

16. They are correct, but it’s easy to assume they aren’t if someone is thinking about months instead of weeks. Information amended to: “People accessing other care at home are invoiced every four weeks. Across the 52 weeks of the year, this works out as 13 invoices. Each invoice would cost £11, so the cost for the year would be £143 (or £2.75 a week).”   

17. Overall, the introduction information feels repetitive.

17. The introduction has been cut down where possible and is now down to four pages.

18. Repeat information about returning the paper survey above Q1.

18. This information has been added to the return instructions at the end of the survey.

19. Unsure how to answer Q1 if you receive telecare.

19. If people receive telecare, this will be covered in Q2.

20. It would be good to separate out the comment box into two, so people can comment separately about the two elements of the proposal.

20. Comment box split into two as suggested.

21. The free text box on the paper survey could be bigger.

21. Our experience with previous surveys is that these boxes are an adequate size and if people want to share more, they will either write on blank parts of the pages or use additional sheets of paper. Increasing the boxes would make the survey feel much longer.

22. Do we want people to explain their tick box answer regarding whether they will still seek support if they are charged for it?

22. Instead of adding a box for this question, we have rearranged the question order so that the ‘any other comments’ question follows on from this tick box. This will allow people to explain their answer if they wish to.