A vulnerable patient hospitalised at Auch hospital in Gers, France, has suffered an unwarranted bank seizure after being improperly billed nearly 700 euros for a private room.
Her son, Nicolas Hattry, has been fighting for months to cancel the fee after discovering an unauthorized single-room charge was levied during his mother's emergency admission to a cardiology continuous care unit.
The case began when the pensioner collapsed in front of the hospital on November 19, 2025. She was immediately admitted to the cardiology monitoring unit before being transferred to a conventional ward, where she remained until her discharge on December 24, 2025. In May, her family received an invoice for 697 euros, representing a daily fee of 20 euros for a private room.
Private room reservations at the facility are managed by Happytal, a commercial company providing concierge and room booking services inside French public hospitals. When Hattry asked for justification regarding the sum, he received a request form bearing a signature that he immediately contested. Hattry stated that the handwriting did not resemble his mother's signature or that of his father, who served as her designated person of trust.
Hattry filed an initial complaint on May 21. In a response dated June 17, the vice-president of the hospital users' commission maintained that the billing was fully compliant. The official stated that the document had been signed upon admission with a handwritten signature rather than an electronic validation, adding that the hospital had no basis to challenge the document or the patient's ability to consent.
Hospital admission and disputed consent
Refusing to accept the outcome, Hattry submitted a second complaint on June 25, supplying photographs that compared the disputed form with genuine signatures from his mother.
The hospital revised its stance on July 13 in a letter from the vice-president of the users' commission. The official acknowledged visible differences in the signatures and conceded that it was impossible to determine with certainty who had signed the document. She also noted that obtaining consent while a patient was in a cardiology continuous care unit failed to guarantee fully informed consent.
The commission further pointed out that the patient's designated person of trust was not consulted, which did not align with internal best practices given her health status. The hospital agreed to cancel the 697-euro invoice on an exceptional basis, extended its apologies to the family, and committed to reviewing its administrative practices to prevent future billing anomalies.
Bank seizure by the Public Treasury
Despite the hospital's cancellation and formal apology, the French Public Treasury, known as the Trésor public, executed a bank seizure of 170 euros from the mother's account in early July to collect the debt. In August, the family was notified of a secondary recovery procedure seeking a further 500 euros.
The ongoing debt recovery occurred during a painful period for the family, following the recent death of the mother's husband. Hattry made numerous telephone calls and sent multiple emails demanding to speak with hospital directors and requesting an immediate halt to the recovery process. He added that the bank seizure also resulted in bank penalty fees amounting to 10 per cent of the confiscated funds.
A disagreement has surfaced between hospital management and treasury officials over why recovery actions continued. Hattry said a hospital treasury official told him that no debt cancellation order had ever been received. However, David Gonzalvo, the deputy director of Auch hospital overseeing finances, disputed this account, stating that the cancellation request was forwarded to the Public Treasury before the end of July and attributing the delay to administrative lags.
Contradictory accounts from management
Hospital management has provided conflicting accounts regarding how authorization for the private room was recorded. While the users' commission maintained in June that a physical handwritten signature was gathered at admission, Gonzalvo later presented a third version, stating that Happytal sent a text message to the patient's mobile phone containing a link to validate the service electronically.
Gonzalvo said the hospital possessed a digital record of the text message procedure, though he acknowledged the facility could not establish who actually used the phone. He ruled out any technical error and maintained that the billing was legally justified, while conceding that conditions were not ideal for obtaining consent and that the benefit of the doubt belonged to the patient.
Hattry emphasized that debt cancellation alone is no longer acceptable after funds were taken from his mother's account. Supported by written records and correspondence, he stated that he intends to seek full answers regarding the administrative failures that allowed collection attempts to continue after the hospital had dropped the charge.
