Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (18 019 514)

Statement Upheld Charging 26-Sep-2019

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council did not explain that his mother would be charged for her residential care. He complains that the Council did not correctly complete a financial assessment and handled his complaint poorly. Mr X says letters from bailiffs have caused distress. He says he has spent time and trouble chasing the Council for a response to his complaint, and that the Council’s actions have caused frustration. The Ombudsman finds fault for the Council not keeping proper records of what it told the family about charging for care, and for the way it handled Mr X’s complaint. This caused injustice. The Council has suggested that it apologise to Mr X and make a payment to reflect the injustice. This is a suitable remedy. The Council has also agreed to make service improvements. The Ombudsman does not uphold the part of Mr X’s complaint about the financial assessment because we have found no fault.

Kent County Council (18 018 334)

Statement Upheld Charging 25-Sep-2019

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to properly explain its charging policy and charged her late mother, Mrs Y, for respite and nursing home fees when she believed it would be free. There was no fault in the Council’s decision to charge Mrs Y for respite and nursing home fees. There were faults in the way it invoiced Mrs Y and Mrs X and in the way it responded to Mrs X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X, pay her £200 for the distress and frustration caused by the faults and write to her clearly setting out what is owed for what time period. It has also agreed to review its procedures to ensure care services are ended properly on its systems.

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (18 007 939)

Statement Upheld Charging 24-Sep-2019

Summary: Miss A complains the Council is wrong to seek recovery of a top up fee for her mother’s care home when she could no longer afford to pay it. The Ombudsman finds there is fault by the Council, because it did not consider the sustainability of its arrangement with Miss A. The Council has agreed a remedy.

North Yorkshire County Council (18 019 267)

Statement Upheld Charging 23-Sep-2019

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his father, Mr Y, who is deceased. Mr X complained about an invoice for care fees when Mr Y lived in a care home for a period of assessment between January and March 2018. Mr X said the Council left Mr Y in an unsuitable room and told him it would not charge for care while it assessed Mr Y’s needs and mental capacity. The Council was not at fault. There was no evidence to show Mr X was told the care home place was free, and no evidence which showed Mr Y’s room was unsuitable. However, the Council was at fault for failing to communicate the result of Mr Y’s financial assessment and also failing to give clear information about the charges to Mr X. The Council agreed to reduce the outstanding invoice by £200 to acknowledge the uncertainty that caused Mr X.

Cumbria County Council (19 000 054)

Statement Not upheld Charging 19-Sep-2019

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about their daughter’s assessed contribution to her care charges and the funding provided to meet her needs. In addition, their daughter has not had respite provision set out in her support plan and the Council failed to provide additional support after she broke her leg. The Council was not at fault

London Borough of Brent (18 010 987)

Statement Not upheld Charging 18-Sep-2019

Summary: The Council continued to provide services to Mrs X even though a substantial debt accrued, as she had eligible assessed needs and some payments were made towards the total debt. Mrs X has not suffered any injustice as a result of the Council’s actions.

Danaz Healthcare Limited (19 003 033)

Statement Not upheld Charging 17-Sep-2019

Summary: The Care Provider acted in a way that recognised Mrs B’s right to decide on a relationship with another resident. There was no fault because it applied its policy on sexuality, which in turn reflected guidance from the Care Quality Commission and respected Mrs B’s right to a private life.

City of Wolverhampton Council (18 016 050)

Statement Not upheld Charging 13-Sep-2019

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not properly explain the respite care charges for her husband, Mr X. She said this resulted in her choosing a care home that was too expensive. There is no fault with the Council’s actions. The Council provided Mrs X with relevant information and she signed contracts based on this.

Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (18 017 415)

Statement Upheld Charging 13-Sep-2019

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to deal properly with the arrangements for his mother-in-law’s care, resulting in it charging her for a service she did not want. The Council did not deal with this properly. It needs to apologise, waive 50% of the care charges, pay financial redress to Mr X for the time and trouble it has put him to and improve its working practices.

Kent County Council (18 002 469)

Statement Upheld Charging 12-Sep-2019

Summary: Miss P complains the Council has failed to deal properly with the charges for her care, expecting her to pay backdated charges she cannot afford to pay and an ongoing charge which will not leave her with enough money to live on. The Council’s decision on backdating and its failure to review Miss P’s needs before stopping her direct payments in April 2018 caused significant avoidable distress to Miss P. The Council needs to apologise and pay financial redress.