Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Lancashire County Council (17 007 313)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 12-Sep-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the residential care fees for the complainant's mother. This is because there is nothing that further investigation could add to the Council's response.

  • West Sussex County Council (17 003 227)

    Statement Upheld Charging 12-Sep-2017

    Summary: There was fault in the way the Council administered a charge for a non-residential care service. The Council has put in place some suitable remedies. To fully remedy fault causing injustice to the service user (Mrs G) and her financial affairs attorney (Mrs C) the Ombudsman recommended and the Council agreed to remove all debt liability for the Council's arrangement and purchase of the day care placement.

  • East Sussex County Council (17 001 090)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 08-Sep-2017

    Summary: There has been no fault in the Council's decision to take notional capital into account when it financially assessed Mrs X.

  • Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (17 005 493)

    Statement Upheld Charging 07-Sep-2017

    Summary: The Council delayed carrying out a financial assessment for care charges and made an invoicing error. This complaint is upheld and the Council has satisfactorily remedied the complaint before our investigation by writing off all charges and apologising.

  • London Borough of Redbridge (17 001 874)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 06-Sep-2017

    Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the Council's decision that Mrs B was not eligible for 6 weeks free reablement care. The Council has already reduced the fees by 50% to recognise that she may have had difficulties cancelling the service and there is no evidence of fault to propose a further remedy.

  • Derbyshire County Council (16 017 666)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 04-Sep-2017

    Summary: There is no fault in the way the Council dealt with Mrs X's concerns about the standard of domiciliary care received by Mrs X and the charges made for the care.

  • South Gloucestershire Council (17 001 818)

    Statement Upheld Charging 04-Sep-2017

    Summary: There was a lack of clarity about the type of placement and associated costs, when Mrs B's mother was admitted to a Care Home on her discharge from hospital. The Ombudsman considers the Council's offer to apologise, waive the first four weeks' charges, pay Mrs B £250 for her time and trouble and update its guidance to be a suitable remedy for the injustice caused to the family.

  • Leeds City Council (17 002 852)

    Statement Upheld Charging 31-Aug-2017

    Summary: The Council accepts it was at fault over the way it dealt with Mrs A's care charges when her reablement care ended. It has offered to refund the charges for 5 September to 23 October 2016. It will also make changes to the way it works to ensure similar problems do not happen again.

  • Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (16 016 745)

    Statement Upheld Charging 31-Aug-2017

    Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council finally invoiced Mrs X for Mrs Y's care. There was fault in the way the Council financially assessed Mrs Y for her care. The Council has corrected this with an adjustment. There was fault in the way the Council issued invoices for the wrong care home and after Mrs Y's death. There was fault in the delay in sending the final invoice. The Council has redressed the distress this caused with an apology and waived part of the final invoice costs.

  • West Sussex County Council (16 008 059)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 29-Aug-2017

    Summary: there was no fault in the Council's decision not to disregard the value of a property Mrs X owned at the time it carried out a financial assessment for residential care home charges in 2016. During the course of this investigation, Mr X's solicitor provided some new evidence. The Council then agreed to refer the case to its Discretionary Property Disregard Panel for consideration.