Charging archive 2021-2022


Archive has 333 results

  • Plymouth City Council (21 012 094)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 12-Jan-2022

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the valuation of a 50% share in a property. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to justify investigating.

  • Bath and North East Somerset Council (21 001 524)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 11-Jan-2022

    Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her mother, Mrs Y, about the Council’s decision to refuse to accept a deferred payment agreement for the cost of Mrs Y’s care, using her home as security. The Ombudsman did not find fault in the Council’s decision-making.

  • Shropshire Council (21 005 617)

    Statement Upheld Charging 10-Jan-2022

    Summary: There was fault by the Council. It failed to get an independent valuation of Mrs Y’s interest in a property as part of a financial assessment for her care home costs. This was a failure to act in line with Annex B of Care and Support and Statutory Guidance. The Council will apologise, make Mrs Y’s representatives a symbolic payment and arrange an independent valuation with the Valuation Office Agency.

  • Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (21 012 568)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 10-Jan-2022

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to disregard compensation Mrs X received when carrying out a financial assessment for her care contributions. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault with the actions of the Council.

  • Kent County Council (21 000 166)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 06-Jan-2022

    Summary: There is no fault by the Council. The Council has offered to carry out a financial assessment to decide if Mr X’s financial contributions towards a well being charge can be reduced. Mr X has refused the financial assessment, so the Council can take no further action.

  • Oakfield Quality Homecare Limited (21 011 548)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 05-Jan-2022

    Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the care provider’s charges. This is because the care provider was not carrying out a regulated activity in connection with providing adult social care. The complaint is therefore outside our jurisdiction with no discretion to investigate.

  • London Borough of Enfield (21 007 833)

    Statement Upheld Charging 04-Jan-2022

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to properly communicate care fees. This is because the Council has already provided a suitable remedy and there is nothing further we could achieve.

  • Kent County Council (21 011 541)

    Statement Upheld Charging 04-Jan-2022

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing incorrect invoices for care services. This is because the Council has already taken suitable action to remedy the complaint.
    Mr X has raised further concerns about invoices issued after the Council responded to his complaint, however the Council has not had an opportunity to respond to this complaint.

  • North Yorkshire County Council (21 005 312)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 03-Jan-2022

    Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint that alleged fault with the Council’s handling of social care and financial matters involving the complainant’s late mother in law.

  • Cheshire West & Chester Council (21 003 598)

    Statement Upheld Charging 22-Dec-2021

    Summary: Miss X complained the Council incorrectly charged her for care that she understood would be free. The Council was at fault for failing to provide financial information to Miss X about her package of care when she left hospital. That meant she could not make an informed decision about the care she agreed to receive. The Council also delayed in responding to Miss X about her charging query and delayed in reviewing her care needs. That caused Miss X avoidable distress and uncertainty and meant she paid for an increased package of care longer than necessary. The Council has agreed not to charge Miss X for the additional visits it put in place and apologise for any avoidable distress 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