Charging archive 2020-2021


Archive has 195 results

  • Suffolk County Council (19 021 118)

    Statement Upheld Charging 01-Dec-2020

    Summary: Mrs B complains on behalf of her daughter, Ms C, that the Council delayed in: reviewing her support plan; telling her the outcome of a financial assessment; and explaining why she had to contribute towards the cost of her services when she had not done so before. She also says there was fault in the way the Council dealt with Ms C’s disability-related expenditure (DRE). We find the Council delayed in completing a review of Ms C’s support plan and a financial re-assessment and in informing Mrs B of the outcome and explaining why Ms C had to pay a contribution. But this did not cause Ms C a significant injustice. There was no fault in the way the Council dealt with Ms C’s DRE.

  • Milton Keynes Council (19 013 080)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 25-Nov-2020

    Summary: Miss P and Mrs Q complain the Council has not completed a financial assessment properly. The Council is not at fault.

  • London Borough of Ealing (19 015 518)

    Statement Upheld Charging 20-Nov-2020

    Summary: Miss X complained the Council charged wrongly for some of her late mother’s care at home. She said she was caused frustration trying to resolve the issue. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because the Council has apologised to
    Miss X and offered an appropriate way to resolve the issues.

  • Brighton & Hove City Council (19 019 251)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 18-Nov-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision that she intentionally deprived herself of assets to avoid paying her care fees. She says she transferred her property to her son in May 2017 and, at the time, there was no indication she would fall ill and need care. The Ombudsman finds no fault with the Council’s decision that Mrs X had intentionally deprived herself of assets.

  • Kent County Council (19 012 666)

    Statement Upheld Charging 18-Nov-2020

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to correctly inform him about his mother’s care home fees. This inconvenienced Mr X and caused him distress during an already stressful and upsetting situation. The Council was at fault which caused Mr X an injustice. The Council have agreed to apologise and to pay Mr X a financial remedy.

  • Worcestershire County Council (19 019 886)

    Statement Upheld Charging 17-Nov-2020

    Summary: There is fault by the Council in this complaint. It failed to ensure the direct payment process was properly explained to Mrs Y, failed to monitor the direct payment account, and failed to address correspondence about the account to Mrs Y.

  • Darlington Borough Council (19 015 504)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 17-Nov-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the advice the Council gave her about disability related expenses and its decision not to make allowance for all the expenses she claimed when calculating the contribution she had to pay towards her care costs. The Council was not at fault.

  • London Borough of Bexley (20 004 336)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 17-Nov-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s late complaint that his mother had to pay additional respite care costs because of delay in fixing the stairlift in her home. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

  • Durham County Council (20 000 872)

    Statement Upheld Charging 16-Nov-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council charged her mother, Mrs Y, for residential care even though she was in hospital. The information provided shows the Council made the decision Mrs Y could not return to the care home on 2 September but continued to charge for the placement until 5 September. The Council will refund the equivalent of three days charge.

  • Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (19 019 391)

    Statement Upheld Charging 12-Nov-2020

    Summary: Mr and Mrs E complained the Council sent an unexpected bill of over £20,000 for the care fees of the late Mrs D two weeks after she died. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault because it failed to provide clear information and advice that Mrs D became fully responsible for her own care costs when she inherited Mr D’s property. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

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