Charging


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (17 002 440)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 17-Jul-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because he is unlikely to add to the Council's previous investigation.

  • Northamptonshire County Council (16 003 911)

    Statement Upheld Charging 17-Jul-2017

    Summary: The Council failed to properly manage a resident's care packages resulting in delays, increased costs, stress and inconvenience.

  • Birmingham City Council (16 009 492)

    Statement Upheld Charging 14-Jul-2017

    Summary: There was fault as the Council delayed assessing and supporting Ms C who needed care and support. The Council should not have asked the family to pay a top-up fee. The Ombudsman has recommended a remedy.

  • London Borough Of Brent (17 003 939)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 13-Jul-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A's complaint about the way he and his family have been treated by the Council in pursuing unpaid care fees. This is because the debt is before the court and it would be reasonable for Mr A to ask the court to consider the legality of the charges and correspondence when pursuing debt.

  • Bournemouth Borough Council (17 001 779)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 13-Jul-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss B's complaint about the Council's decision not to apply a discretionary disregard to her parents' property when assessing their contribution towards the cost of their residential care. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

  • Staffordshire County Council (16 018 555)

    Statement Upheld Charging 12-Jul-2017

    Summary: The Council was at fault in deciding to backdate Mr V's increased care charges following an incorrect initial financial assessment. The Council has remedied the injustice suffered by Mr V by revising this decision and agreeing not to backdate the charges. There was no fault in the way the Council completed the new financial assessment.

  • Lancashire County Council (16 011 307)

    Statement Upheld Charging 10-Jul-2017

    Summary: The Council failed to notify Mr and Mrs X of the increased cost of a new care package. Even though the new care package required two carers at each visit, many incomplete visits took place meaning Mrs X had to assist the one carer that attended. The Council has provided an appropriate remedy.

  • Bournemouth Borough Council (17 001 249)

    Statement Upheld Charging 10-Jul-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsmen will not investigate Mr X and Mrs Y's complaint about an incorrect assessment during a hospital discharge. The Council has agreed to write off the charge that would have applied to Mr X's temporary residential placement and to make service improvements. An investigation by the Ombudsmen is unlikely to achieve more.

  • Halton Borough Council (16 009 404)

    Statement Upheld Charging 10-Jul-2017

    Summary: The Council delayed completion of financial assessment for an adult social care service user (Mr G). The Ombudsman recommended and the Council agreed to put right fault by writing off Mr G's liability completely for contribution towards the cost of the rehab placement and apologising to him in writing.

  • Salford City Council (15 001 610)

    Statement Upheld Charging 06-Jul-2017

    Summary: The Council's failure to properly advise Mr X or his mother Mrs Y about all of the charges associated with Mrs Y's extra care sheltered housing placement amounts to fault. The Council is also at fault in failing to ensure Mrs Y received the care and support set out in her support plan. These failings have caused Mr X and Mrs Y an injustice.

;