Archive has 250 results
-
Nottinghamshire County Council (19 002 730)
Statement Upheld Charging 20-Nov-2019
Summary: There was fault in the way Mr C’s care plan was set up as it did not specify the time when the carers were meant to attend. As a result, the carers attended at different times and sometimes Mr C was out when the carers attended. The Council still charged Mr C for those visits which was also fault. The Council has agreed to apologise in writing and to repay Mr C for visits that did not take place for which he was charged.
-
Statement Upheld Charging 20-Nov-2019
Summary: The Council was at fault as it did not include Disability Related Expenditure when calculating care charges and did not review it regularly. The Council’s recalculation of the DRE and refund of the excess charges, remedies the financial injustice caused.
-
Nottinghamshire County Council (19 003 830)
Statement Upheld Charging 18-Nov-2019
Summary: The Council was at fault for a delay in reviewing Miss C’s care and support plan, which meant there was a delay in referring her for support to bring her transport costs down. However, this delay did not cause her an injustice, because the Council waived her contributions during that period. The Ombudsman cannot question the Council’s decision to charge a contribution because it is entitled to do so, and it has considered Miss C’s income and expenditure, and the law, in reaching a decision.
-
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 18-Nov-2019
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s demand for £856. This is because the Council has decided the complainant does not have to pay it. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the dispute about the larger debt because the matter has been considered in court.
-
Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (19 010 793)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 14-Nov-2019
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss A’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with her complaint about her financial contribution to her care costs. This is because it is unlikely we could significantly add to the Council’s investigation or that further investigation would lead to a different outcome.
-
London Borough of Enfield (18 001 332)
Statement Upheld Charging 11-Nov-2019
Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council has charged him for care services. He also complains that the Council failed to make a reasonable adjustment for him when it considered his complaint, and failed to properly investigate his complaint. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council for the way it has assessed and charged Mr X for contributions to his care costs. However, the Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for not considering making a reasonable adjustment for Mr X, such as provide information to him in an accessible format. This has caused Mr X injustice. The Council will apologise to Mr X and make sure that all future written communication is provided to him in an accessible format.
-
Statement Not upheld Charging 11-Nov-2019
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision not to disregard Mrs Y’s property when assessing her ability to pay for her care. Mr X says this caused Mrs Y and Mrs W stress and worry. The Ombudsman finds no fault with the Council’s actions.
-
Sheffield City Council (19 000 758)
Statement Upheld Charging 07-Nov-2019
Summary: The Council is at fault for failing to provide accurate financial assessments about charges for community services. This has caused the complainants uncertainty and anxiety. The Council has agreed to apologise for the confusion caused, meet with the complainants to complete a new financial assessment and; make a payment of £200 for the uncertainty and anxiety its failures caused.
-
Essex County Council (19 001 361)
Statement Not upheld Charging 07-Nov-2019
Summary: The Council’s billing for care charges was correct. There is no evidence the Council has charged the complainant for dates when she cancelled care visits.
-
Westminster City Council (18 015 599)
Statement Not upheld Charging 05-Nov-2019
Summary: There is no significant fault by the Council. It provided monthly invoices for care, apart from an eight month period where it told the care user there would be a delay in billing because of technical issues. There was no delay in billing the care users estate after her death and the Council sent a final reminder notice when the debt remained unpaid.