Charging archive 2020-2021


Archive has 195 results

  • Luton Borough Council (19 008 554)

    Statement Upheld Charging 12-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mrs R complains that the Council made a mistake in Ms X’s financial assessment which led to a large bill. She also complains that the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments when communicating with Ms X. Mrs R says this has caused Ms X distress and taken time and trouble to resolve. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault for failing to consider its duties to make reasonable adjustments for Ms X. This caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and make improvements to its service. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault for its financial assessments.

  • Support Carers Limited (19 019 273)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 08-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained that Support Carers Limited pursued him for care fees he did not owe. He also complains the Provider blocked his calls when he called to discuss the fees. We have found no evidence of fault by the Provider.

  • Lincolnshire County Council (19 014 578)

    Statement Upheld Charging 07-Jan-2021

    Summary: There was no evidence of fault by the Council when it calculated no refund was due on charges for cancelled care visits in accordance with its policy. There was fault by the Council, in that there was three months delay responding to a returned financial assessment form. An apology remedies the inconvenience caused to the service user.

  • London Borough of Harrow (19 011 939)

    Statement Upheld Charging 04-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mr C complains about the way in which the Council informed the family about charges in relation to his (late) father’s care. As a result, he had to spend time and trouble to try and solve the dispute that subsequently arose. We found there were delays by the Council, and it failed to correctly apply its guideline as to the date on which Mr F should start to pay a contribution towards his homecare. The Council has agreed to apologise, wave the fees it asked Mr F to pay, and pay £100 for the time and trouble Mr C had to spend to resolve this.

  • Northamptonshire County Council (19 020 393)

    Statement Upheld Charging 22-Dec-2020

    Summary: Miss B complained the Council double charged her for contributions to her domiciliary care package and respite care and delayed recognising that, sent her invoices after it had agreed not to and failed to offer her a suitable remedy. The Council delayed recognising Miss B was having to pay two contributions and wrongly issued a further invoice in 2020. The financial remedy offered to Miss B, plus a review of the Council’s policy, is satisfactory remedy for the financial loss to Miss B. The Council should also apologise and pay Miss B’s representative an amount to reflect the time and trouble she had to go to pursuing the complaint over a long period of time. The Council should also consider whether others have been similarly affected.

  • Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (20 005 266)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 22-Dec-2020

    Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decisions on her financial contribution towards her social care. This is because the Council has offered a further financial review which it is reasonable to expect Ms X to use first before the Ombudsman will consider her complaint.

  • Hartlepool Borough Council (19 018 353)

    Statement Upheld Charging 18-Dec-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not explain there would be a cost for the first six weeks of Mr D’s residential care, whilst his needs were assessed. The Council was at fault for providing inconsistent information about the nature of the placement and for not providing any information about the costs until after the six week assessment period had ended. To remedy this it should apologise and waive some of the costs.

  • Nottinghamshire County Council (20 008 040)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 17-Dec-2020

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s late complaint about the Council refusing to enter into a third party top-up agreement relating to his brother-in-law’s care. There is not a good reason Mr X did not bring his complaint to the Ombudsman sooner.

  • Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (20 004 371)

    Statement Upheld Charging 17-Dec-2020

    Summary: Ms X’s representative complained about the Council’s failure to provide information about a historical care debt. We will not investigate the complaint because the Council has now resolved it by sending the information requested.

  • Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (19 019 437)

    Statement Upheld Charging 16-Dec-2020

    Summary: The Council is at fault at it did not provide sufficient information for Mrs Z and her family to know she had to pay a contribution towards her care home fees. The Council also delayed in sending an invoice to Mrs Z’s family for the client contribution. The faults caused distress to Mrs Z’s family and Mr Y was put to avoidable time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. The Council will remedy this injustice by apologising to Mrs Z’s family and making a payment of £250 to the family and a payment of £100 to Mr Y.

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