Charging archive 2019-2020


Archive has 261 results

  • Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (19 011 344)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 20-Mar-2020

    Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to deal properly with charges for her father’s care in 2014 and waited until 2019 to pursue them, despite complaining about them in 2014. The Council has offered to waive the charges and apologise to the family. We will discontinue the investigation as there is nothing more we can achieve.

  • Wakefield City Council (19 017 622)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 19-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council has decided the complainant does not qualify for free social care because he has deprived himself of savings. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

  • London Borough of Tower Hamlets (19 008 359)

    Statement Upheld Charging 18-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Council is at fault as it did not give adequate consideration to Ms X’s appeal of January 2018 for disability related expenditure. The fault by the Council caused uncertainty and avoidable time and trouble to Ms X. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising to Ms X and making a payment of £100 to Ms X which is in addition to a payment offered of £100 already offered by the Council.

  • Cornwall Council (19 010 309)

    Statement Upheld Charging 16-Mar-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to include her father’s share of the home he shared with his wife in his financial assessment. The Council has not dealt with this matter properly, which leaves some doubt over whether it has made the right decision. It therefore needs to reconsider its decision.

  • Hertfordshire County Council (19 018 120)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 13-Mar-2020

    Summary: Now that Council has carried out a full review, the Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council failed to provide full information and advice about payment for care services. This is because it is unlikely the Ombudsman’s involvement will lead to a significantly different outcome.

  • Norfolk County Council (18 018 648)

    Statement Upheld Charging 12-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about an overpayment of direct payments. This is because the Council resolved the complaint by taking action with which Mr B and the Ombudsman are satisfied.

  • I Care International Limited (19 007 007)

    Statement Upheld Charging 12-Mar-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained the Care Provider, I Care International Ltd, inappropriately stated it would increase his mother, Mrs M’s care home fees from £530 to £750 for one year and then to £950 thereafter. Mr X said this was unfair and it has caused him significant distress. The Care Provider was at fault for failing to provide Mrs M with a contract in a timely manner. The contracts the Care Provider then drew up for Mrs M and other residents were not in line with legislation and breached the Care Quality Commission’s Regulations. The Care Provider has agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £300 for the unnecessary distress it caused him. It has also agreed to review its contracts to ensure they are fit for purpose.

  • London Borough of Haringey (19 004 275)

    Statement Upheld Charging 06-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Council did not provide the proper information to the late Mr X’s family about the cost of his residential care. It delayed in assessing his finances. The Council agrees to apologise to Ms X and waive the outstanding debt.

  • Stow Healthcare Group Limited (19 018 255)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 03-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr B’s complaint about the decision by his father’s, Mr C’s, care home provider to issue Mr C with a notice of eviction. This is because the matters are listed to be heard by a court. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the care provider’s handling of Funded Nursing Care (FNC) payments because the provider has offered to deduct sums from Mr C’s care fees so there is no unremedied injustice warranting the Ombudsman investigating.

  • London Borough of Harrow (19 010 343)

    Statement Upheld Charging 28-Feb-2020

    Summary: Mr X complains about misleading information the Council gave him over funding to meet the care needs of his elderly mother when she moved to Norfolk in 2019. There was fault by the Council because it did not correctly follow the continuity of care process under the Care Act 2014. The Council agreed to remedy the injustice it caused by paying £300 to Mr X’s mother for the distress she was caused by its action as well as a time and trouble payment of £100 to Mr X.

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.

Privacy settings