Wokingham Borough Council (18 018 028)

Statement Upheld Charging 12-Sep-2019

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to properly notify Ms B about her father’s potential care charges, for providing inconsistent information about the charges, and for the delay in responding to her complaint. The Council’s failures did not cause Ms B’s father an injustice, because it is unlikely he would have received cheaper residential care if Ms B had refused to pay the Council and had arranged his care privately. However, the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms B and make a payment of £150 to remedy her injustice.

London Borough of Wandsworth (18 014 085)

Statement Not upheld Charging 10-Sep-2019

Summary: There was no fault in the Council charging Mr E for home care after he left hospital as he was not receiving enablement care and Mrs E received appropriate information about charging.

Prestige Care (Roseville) LTD (18 016 832)

Statement Upheld Charging 10-Sep-2019

Summary: The Care Provider was at fault because it did not issue a written contract for Mr D’s care, gave Ms C, his representative, different figures for the charge verbally, did not send timely invoices and failed to explain how it treated funded nursing care payments. This caused Ms C avoidable confusion and uncertainty. To remedy the injustice, the Care Provider should refund Ms C part of the fee and apologise within one month of this statement.

Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (19 008 087)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 09-Sep-2019

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint the Council is seeking to recover an unpaid debt for care charges from his late father’s estate and in particular from the sale proceeds of the family home which is still occupied by Mr B’s sister, who has disabilities. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing Mr B and his family injustice, so it does not warrant the Ombudsman investigating.

London Borough of Hillingdon (18 019 597)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 04-Sep-2019

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s financial assessment. This is because her complaint is late and I have not exercised discretion to investigate it. If Mrs B disagrees with the Council’s most recent financial assessment for reasons she has not previously raised, it is reasonable to expect her to appeal to the Council against it.

Lancashire County Council (18 009 486)

Statement Upheld Charging 03-Sep-2019

Summary: The Council did not carry out regular financial reassessments of a service users ability to contribute towards day centre care costs. There is evidence that it told the user of changes to a direct debit amount and that she needed to pay the cost of the day centre. The Council’s offer to backdate a financial assessment and to replay any fees charged when the user did not attend, along with a £250 payment for time and trouble remedies the injustice caused.

London Borough of Havering (18 006 507)

Statement Upheld Charging 30-Aug-2019

Summary: Mrs Y, who is complaining on behalf of her aunt and cousin, says the Council is at fault in how it has calculated the contributions her aunt should make towards her residential care. The Ombudsman found some evidence of fault and recommended the Council act on his recommendations. It agreed and for this reason he has ended his consideration of this complaint.

Norfolk County Council (19 005 492)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 30-Aug-2019

Summary: On behalf of his mother, Mr B complains about Council charges for a cleaning service provided to her in 2013. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it falls outside our jurisdiction as the events complained about happened too long ago to be investigated now.

Abbey Healthcare Homes Limited (19 002 653)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 29-Aug-2019

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the care provider’s delay in repaying a significant amount of overpaid care home fees. This is because the care provider repaid the money and apologised to Mr X prior to the Ombudsman investigating. This offers a reasonable remedy for the acknowledged fault.

London Borough of Islington (19 002 161)

Statement Upheld Charging 28-Aug-2019

Summary: Mr X complained the Council sent him a bill for care charges in a format he could not understand and without telling him it had carried out an assessment. On the evidence seen, the Council was at fault. It has remedied the injustice caused by cancelling the care charges from its bill and by refunding some of the charges Mr X paid for his care.