Privacy settings

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.

Charging archive 2016-2017

Archive has 107 results

  • Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (16 011 972)

    Statement Upheld Charging 31-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Council was at fault when the Care Provider it arranged charged Mrs X £25 per week top up. The Council offered Mrs X an alternative when it found out but she declined. It will refund £300 to Mrs X for the 12 weeks she paid the top up before this.

  • West Sussex County Council (16 015 019)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 30-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Council was not at fault in the way it made its decision about the property valuation disregard. The complaint is not upheld.

  • Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (16 009 362)

    Statement Upheld Charging 30-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Council was at fault in how it calculated Mrs X's care charges, and how it communicated the charges to Mr and Ms Y. The Council was also at fault when it did not carry out a carer's assessment for Ms Y. The Council has agreed to arrange an independent audit of Mrs X's account and to investigate the reasons for miscalculations and whether others may be affected. It had already agreed to reduce Ms X's arrears by £500. It has also agreed to pay £250 to Mr and Ms Y to acknowledge the uncertainty and time and trouble caused to them and to issue a written apology.

  • Southend-on-Sea Borough Council (16 011 359)

    Statement Upheld Charging 29-Mar-2017

    Summary: Mr and Mrs C complained to us about the top up fee they had to pay for their father's temporary residential care. I have upheld the complaint.

  • London Borough of Hillingdon (16 008 689)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 27-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Council was not at fault in the way it assessed Mrs Y's contribution to her care package.

  • London Borough of Croydon (16 016 337)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 24-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A's complaint. This is because he does not have written consent from Ms A's mother, Mrs B, to do so.

  • Medway Council (16 011 486)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 23-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Council was not at fault in the way it considered Mrs Y's needs or in the budget it provided to meet her needs.

  • Lancashire County Council (16 012 257)

    Statement Upheld Charging 23-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman has stopped his investigation into this complaint. The Council has agreed to write off the outstanding care invoices and care charges.

  • Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (16 002 186)

    Report Upheld Charging 22-Mar-2017

    Summary: A family complain the council did not give them the option to choose a care home which did not require a 'top-up fee' when it arranged their relative's care.

  • Medway Council (16 011 484)

    Statement Upheld Charging 21-Mar-2017

    Summary: Mr C complained the Council did not provide all the information he needed to make an informed decision how to finance his mother's residential care. I have upheld Mr C's complaint.