Privacy settings

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.

Charging


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (20 011 883)

    Statement Upheld Charging 07-Sep-2021

    Summary: Mr C complained about the way the Council dealt with matters in relation to the financial assessment of his (late) uncle's residential care placement. I found fault with the long time it took the Council to complete the financial assessment, for which the Council has agreed to apologise.

  • Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (20 008 434)

    Statement Upheld Charging 06-Sep-2021

    Summary: The Council's assessment of whether garden maintenance charges should be allowed as a disability related expenditure was at fault as it was not clear if the Council had adequately considered the extent of maintenance needed. Reassessing the expenditure and backdating any changes remedies any financial injustice. There was no fault in the Council's consideration of other expenditure or its financial assessment.

  • Kent County Council (20 011 177)

    Statement Upheld Charging 31-Aug-2021

    Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council conducted the financial assessment or arranged a care package, although there was poor communication about the process. However, the care visits by the Council's commissioned care provider did not meet Mrs X's needs. The Council agrees to waive the charges as the records show care was not regularly given. The Council acknowledges it could have offered a copy of the care and support plan before the financial assessment was completed and has reminded staff to do so from now on.

  • London Borough of Sutton (20 010 214)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 31-Aug-2021

    Summary: There is no fault in how the Council assessed whether Miss Y should contribute towards the cost of her care.

  • London Borough of Enfield (20 005 156)

    Statement Upheld Charging 26-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council decided what contribution his mother, Mrs Y, should make towards her residential care costs. The Council was at fault in how it considered Mrs Y deprived herself of assets and whether it should disregard the value of her property from its financial assessment of her care costs. This caused Mr X and his brother uncertainty. The Council has agreed to produce a template to remind staff they must set out their rationale for deciding someone has deprived themselves of an asset. It also agreed to review its decisions where it received complaints about a deprivation of assets or property disregard decision since January 2020. It will also apologise, make a payment to Mr X and his brother and reconsider its decision on whether Mrs Y was eligible for a property disregard.

  • Swindon Borough Council (20 000 973)

    Statement Upheld Charging 19-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mrs C complains about the Council's management of her late father's care home charges. There was delay in providing a full statement of account, and a failure to take action in respect of Mr B's pension. The Council has agreed to the Ombudsman's recommendation that it reimburse the £218.00 probate charges, in addition to the £262.07 it has already agreed to write off. It has also put in place measures to improve its management of client accounts.

  • Sunderland City Council (20 006 211)

    Statement Upheld Charging 19-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mrs C says the Council has failed to correctly assess charges for home support services. The Council's assessment of Disability Related Expenditure (DRE) is flawed. To remedy the complaint the Council should clearly specify within the support plan eligible emotional and social care needs. I find no fault in the way the Council has considered Ms D's housing costs.

  • Nottinghamshire County Council (20 013 881)

    Statement Upheld Charging 17-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mr B complained the Council wrongly assessed his mother as having 'notional capital' to pay for care following a series of gifts and a property transfer she made between 2014 and 2017. We uphold the complaint, finding the Council has not taken account of relevant matters in its decision. This has caused Mr B distress because of the uncertainty created. The Council accepts these findings and has agreed action to remedy this injustice, including carrying out a review of its decision.

  • London Borough of Croydon (20 012 636)

    Statement Upheld Charging 17-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has incorrectly charged her mother, Mrs C, for the cost of her care. She says carers visits were often shorter than what has been charged which meant Mrs C was being asked to pay for care she did not receive. There was fault by the Council with the amount Mrs C was asked to pay. The Council has agreed to apologise and remind the care provider about the importance of submitting accurate information, in addition to the remedy it has already provided by reducing the amount owed by Mrs C.

  • Kingston Upon Hull City Council (20 010 823)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 17-Aug-2021

    Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Council. The Council arranged respite care when Mr X was discharged from hospital and there is no evidence the Council told the family it would be free reablement care. There is also no evidence of inadequate care in the care home or of delay in organising home care.