Archive has 195 results
-
Kent County Council (20 006 054)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 08-Dec-2020
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council charging his daughter, Ms C for backdated care. This is because it is unlikely he would find enough evidence of fault with the Council’s actions to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.
-
Darlington Borough Council (19 017 746)
Statement Upheld Charging 08-Dec-2020
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council carried out an incorrect financial assessment of her mother, Mrs Y’s assets when she applied for assistance with her residential care costs. She said this caused Mrs Y considerable distress and inconvenience. The Council was at fault when it initially failed to provide a written record of its financial assessment and delayed responding to Mrs X’s complaint however, neither Mrs X nor Mrs Y experienced a significant injustice because of this.
-
Statement Not upheld Charging 08-Dec-2020
Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to deal properly with the charges for his late father’s residential care, including the appeal over his financial assessment, leaving them out of pocket and preventing them from making informed decisions about his care. The Council accepts there was room for improvement with some of its communications and has apologised. However, there was no fault affecting the Council’s decision on what Mr X’s father should pay.
-
West Sussex County Council (19 021 003)
Statement Upheld Charging 07-Dec-2020
Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s refusal to disregard the value of her late mother’s home when assessing care charges, resulting in Ms X losing her home and causing distress. We find no fault in the Council’s decision making but find delay in the process causing injustice. We recommend the Council provides an apology, payment and acts to prevent recurrence.
-
City of York Council (19 009 453)
Statement Upheld Charging 07-Dec-2020
Summary: Ms C complains her mother was taken into hospital with hypothermia, and about the time it took to move her mother back to her own home again, after she had been discharged from hospital. We found the Council should have ensured that, when it became aware of a heating problem at the property, that appropriate steps were taken to resolve this immediately. The Council has agreed to apologise for this.
-
Essex County Council (19 020 100)
Statement Upheld Charging 07-Dec-2020
Summary: Mr C complained the Council required him to pay twelve weeks of top up payments in advance, so he could ensure his mother-in-law could live in the care home of her choice. He said this left a large dent in his personal finances. We found the Council was at fault for requiring the payment of a 12 weeks ‘security deposit. During the course of the investigation, the Council took steps to review its policy and remedy the fault by repaying 8 weeks of the advance payment to Mr C and others similarly affected.
-
Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (18 014 139)
Statement Upheld Charging 04-Dec-2020
Summary: The Care Provider did not explain the extra charge it made for a ‘lifestyle premium’ and we cannot be sure that the complainant, the late Mrs J, would have chosen to pay this. It has agreed to refund half the total amount to Mrs J’s estate and review the advice it gives about this. The Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) Occupational Therapy service failed to complete an assessment and so it could not fund a specialist chair for Mrs J and she had to be nursed in bed. The CCG should refund the cost of the chair to the daughter and pay her £300 in recognition of her distress. It should also review how its OT provision is organised.
-
West Sussex County Council (19 020 400)
Statement Not upheld Charging 03-Dec-2020
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision that his mother deliberately deprived herself of capital to avoid care costs. We find no fault in the way the Council reached its decision.
-
Lancashire County Council (19 021 178)
Statement Not upheld Charging 03-Dec-2020
Summary: Mrs Y complained the Council carried out a flawed financial assessment of her son which failed to take account of his relevant disability related expenditure. She also complained it sent invoices to the wrong address delaying her ability to appeal. The Council was not at fault.
-
City of York Council (19 012 757)
Statement Upheld Charging 01-Dec-2020
Summary: Mr C complained to us about the way in which the Council carried out his financial assessment. He said the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments during the process and failed to properly deal with some of his disability related expenses (DREs). Mr C says this made him distressed and resulted in an assessed contribution he cannot afford. The Ombudsman found fault with regards to the Council’s actions, which caused an injustice. The Council has agreed to reconsider part of his expenses and share the lessons learned with its staff.