Essex County Council (19 018 252)

Statement Upheld Charging 26-Oct-2020

Summary: Mr C complained to us about the way in which the Council dealt with his uncle’s contribution to this homecare support. The Ombudsman found fault with the actions of the Council. It failed to provide enough information about charging, before the care package started, and failed to properly deal with questions Mr C raised about this, as well as his complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise and remind its staff about the importance of providing comprehensive information about charging and properly recording discussions about this.

Isle of Wight Council (19 018 476)

Statement Not upheld Charging 26-Oct-2020

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to charge Mrs Y for her care following discharge from hospital, which she believes should be free. Also, that it did not tell her a charge would apply. She says this caused Mrs Y a financial loss as she was still paying for her flat and the Council should waive the charge. The Ombudsman finds the Council was not at fault in the way it dealt with Mrs X.

Wiltshire Council (19 012 019)

Statement Not upheld Charging 21-Oct-2020

Summary: The Council had a duty under the Care Act to ensure the late Mrs X was left with her Personal Expenses Allowance (PEA). Its records show it deducted the PEA from the total of Mrs X’s income before it calculated her client contribution.

Norfolk County Council (19 012 882)

Statement Upheld Charging 20-Oct-2020

Summary: Mr C complains about the way in which the Council has carried out his financial assessment, and the Council’s subsequent decision that he needs to pay a contribution for his care. The Ombudsman found the Council failed to discuss Disability Related Expenses (DREs) at the first financial assessment visit. Furthermore, when the Council considered Mr C’s DREs, it failed to explain to him why it decided it would not treat some of his expenses as DRE. The Council has agreed to provide an apology for this and inform its staff about the lessons learned.

East Sussex County Council (19 010 267)

Statement Upheld Charging 20-Oct-2020

Summary: Mr and Mrs C complained about the way in which the Council dealt with Mr X’s financial assessment for temporary and permanent residential care, and in particular with the issue of discretionary property disregards. The Ombudsman found fault with the way the Council communicated, the delay in completing a financial assessment and the manner in which it considered the discretionary property disregard. The Council has agreed to apologise, remind its staff of the importance of timely and comprehensive information and revise its discretionary disregard report form.

Birmingham City Council (19 009 354)

Statement Upheld Charging 20-Oct-2020

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to involve her in her mother, Mrs Z’s, financial assessments even though she has power of attorney, failed to assign Mrs Z a social worker between 2017 and 2019 and did not carry out proper needs assessments. The Council was not at fault when it did not assign Mrs Z a social worker. It was at fault when it did not send Ms X copies of Mrs Z’s annual financial assessments but this did not cause an injustice. The Council should remind staff of the need to send financial assessments where someone holds power of attorney. The Council was also at fault when it took too long to review Ms Z’s care and support plan but there is no evidence she missed out on care she needed. If Ms X believes Ms Z was entitled to funded nursing care she can make a retrospective application to the NHS.

Hollow Oak Nursing Home Limited (19 013 611)

Statement Upheld Charging 16-Oct-2020

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his father, Mr Y, that fees paid to Hollow Oak Nursing Home were not reduced following an NHS funding award. He said the home’s information about fees was unclear. The Ombudsman found the home’s contract could have been clearer. However, it did not suggest fees would reduce following an award of funded nursing care.

Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (19 017 306)

Statement Upheld Charging 16-Oct-2020

Summary: A legal representative complains for his client Mr B about the charges he is paying for his care and support, which he says are too high, leaving him with income below the level of the Minimum Income Guarantee. The Ombudsman finds there was fault by the Council in its failure to update its charging policy to reflect the government guidance it was applying, but this did not lead to injustice for Mr B.

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (19 014 729)

Statement Upheld Charging 14-Oct-2020

Summary: There is evidence of fault in this complaint. The Council took too long to complete a financial assessment which led to Mr & Mrs X receiving a large bill. There is no evidence to suggest the Council told Mrs X the care would be free.

Lincolnshire County Council (19 015 801)

Statement Upheld Charging 14-Oct-2020

Summary: Mr Y complains about the Council’s decisions on Mrs X’s care charges, causing financial loss, distress, time and trouble. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault because it did not provide adequate, timely or accurate information on care charges. The Ombudsman recommends the Council provides Mr Y with an apology and payment for distress, time and trouble; waives Mrs X’s invoice for client contributions and; takes action to prevent recurrence.