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 2018-2019

Archive has 232 results

  • West Sussex County Council (18 007 714)

    Statement Upheld Charging 28-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mrs C complained the Council did not give proper support to her mother-in-law and family over the financial aspects of her mother-in-law going into residential care. The Ombudsman considers the Council was at fault in some respects but it did not cause significant injustice to Mrs X or her family.

  • Stoke-on-Trent City Council (18 012 345)

    Statement Upheld Charging 27-Mar-2019

    Summary: The Council acknowledged failings in the home care provided to Mr Y before the complaint came to the Ombudsman. However, it failed to provide an adequate remedy. We have made recommendations to address this.

  • Cheshire West & Chester Council (18 017 272)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 26-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained to the Council the residential home caring for his mother had agreed to backdate a refund of 'top up' fees, but then changed its mind. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has investigated Mr X's complaint and it is unlikely further investigation by us will lead to a different result.

  • London Borough of Lewisham (18 004 565)

    Statement Upheld Charging 26-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr F's children complained about the way the Council decided that he would have to pay a contribution towards his care package. The Ombudsman found fault with the way in which the Council communicated with the family and recorded decisions. The Council has agreed to provide an apology for the distress it has caused and share the lessons learned with its adult social care staff.

  • Lancashire County Council (18 005 037)

    Statement Upheld Charging 25-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr X says the Council did not explain the financial cost of a stay in a residential home for his father in the summer of 2017. There was fault by the Council because it did not explain the cost in writing to Mr X and his father. However, this failing did not lead to significant injustice. Mr X's father would have had to pay the cost even if the fault had not occurred.

  • London Borough of Redbridge (18 015 940)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 22-Mar-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about home care and respite charges incurred in 2014. This is because it is a late complaint.

  • Warwickshire County Council (18 006 817)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 21-Mar-2019

    Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council decided to include the value of Mr X's property in his financial assessment.

  • Stockingate Residential Home (18 017 416)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 21-Mar-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about an invoice mistakenly sent by a care provider to Mr X. This is because the Care Provider has already provided an appropriate response.

  • Birmingham City Council (18 010 790)

    Statement Upheld Charging 20-Mar-2019

    Summary: The Council was at fault as it did not formally consider whether to exercise discretion to disregard the value of a property when making a financial assessment towards care costs. In order to remedy the injustice, the Council should now formally consider this. Once the outcome is known, the Council should then write and outline the options to the family of the resident in care, including the outcome of a new backdated financial assessment if needed. Some of the advice given to the family was confusing, but this did not alter the outcome for Mrs B, as it is likely she would have always needed to pay for her care.

  • Cornwall Council (18 006 985)

    Statement Upheld Charging 19-Mar-2019

    Summary: The Council delayed in resolving discrepancies between the amount it was paying a care home for Ms F's care and the full cost of her care during the period Ms F's finances were being resolved. However this did not cause Ms F injustice as the Council covered the cost of the shortfall for Ms F's care when her finances were finalised and she was unable to meet the full costs in 2018.