Charging


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • London Borough of Waltham Forest (24 023 358)

    Statement Upheld Charging 26-Aug-2025

    Summary: We have upheld Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s delay to respond to his complaint regarding his late mother’s care charges and the support she received in a care home. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. The Council will investigate Mr B’s complaint, apologise to him and pay him £150 for the frustration and distress caused. It will also provide training for its staff on its new software system to address any gaps in knowledge and minimise complaint handling delays.

  • Staffordshire County Council (25 002 792)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 26-Aug-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to fund Mr Y’s care fees before 1 October 2024. There is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice to justify an investigation.

  • Blackpool Borough Council (25 002 654)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 21-Aug-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a care home commissioned by the Council charging additional fees to Mrs X. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate it. We also will not investigate the complaint about the Council not informing Mrs X’s family that she may be able to apply for Continuing Health Care funding. This is because any fault by the Council would not have caused a significant enough injustice to justify an investigation.

  • East Sussex County Council (25 001 937)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 20-Aug-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council completed a financial assessment. That is because most of the complaint is late. Where the complaint is in time, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

  • Derby City Council (25 002 266)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 20-Aug-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council told her that her father’s care would be free. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

  • Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (25 002 374)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 20-Aug-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that her relative must contribute towards her transport costs to a day care centre. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

  • Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (24 015 115)

    Statement Upheld Charging 19-Aug-2025

    Summary: There was fault in the Council’s delay in sending an invoice and in the information it provided to Mr D and his family on what the cost of a care package would be. This meant that Mr D and his family did not have the necessary information to make informed decisions about the care package. The Council has agreed to apologise, to cancel a proposed invoice and has agreed a service improvement.

  • Lincolnshire County Council (24 018 530)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 19-Aug-2025

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider the history of gifting when calculating notional capital due to deprivation of assets. There was no fault on this point. There was some delay and failure to pay the correct amount to the care home but this did not cause significant injustice to the family.

  • Devon County Council (25 001 524)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 19-Aug-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial assessment for adult social care. There is not enough evidence of fault in the process, so we cannot question the outcome.

  • London Borough of Hillingdon (24 017 926)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 18-Aug-2025

    Summary: Mrs S complained that her sister received an invoice for care charges which were sometimes above the weekly amount they were told would be owed. There was no fault by the Council. Miss X self funded her care and the Council told her that if the carers billed for increased charges, these would be passed on. The charges were also reduced when the weekly care was reduced.

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings