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.


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (21 006 231)

    Statement Upheld Charging 12-Apr-2022

    Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of her son, Mr Y, about care and support charges from the Council. She said the Council sent two years' worth of invoices to Mr Y, who did not know he had to contribute to the cost of his care as no one from the Council spoke to him about it. The Ombudsman found fault causing injustice because the Council failed to maintain a proper oversight of Mr Y's care and support and failed to carry out adequate financial reviews.

  • Staffordshire County Council (21 010 785)

    Statement Upheld Charging 10-Apr-2022

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care fees. There is insufficient evidence of fault with how the Council calculated the fees originally. The Council's mistake to correctly apply the increased fees benefitted Mr X for 4 years. The Council is no longer pursuing the backdated fees. Any fault by the Council has not caused an injustice to the person complaining.

  • Wiltshire Council (21 005 541)

    Statement Upheld Charging 07-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his father, Mr P, that the Council did not carry out a timely assessment of Mr P's care needs following hospital discharge. There was also poor communication with his family about a financial assessment and changes to funding for his care package. The Council was at fault. It has already reimbursed Mr P for the care charges he paid. It has agreed to make separate payments to Mr P and Mrs X to recognise their distress and inconvenience.

  • West Berkshire Council (21 006 807)

    Statement Upheld Charging 05-Apr-2022

    Summary: There was poor record-keeping by the Care Provider acting for the Council. The Council will apologise for the avoidable uncertainty.

  • North Yorkshire County Council (21 008 958)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 04-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to deal properly with the charges for her father's care, resulting in him being sent a bill for backdated charges which he was not expecting. There has been no fault by the Council.

  • Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (21 006 990)

    Statement Upheld Charging 03-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council is overcharging Mrs Y for the care she receives from its care provider, Icare Solutions (Wirral) Ltd. Mrs Y's commissioned calls do not appear to have reflected her actual needs. This has resulted in significant overcharging, made worse by other failings within the charging system. The Council needs to correct these problems, apologise, recalculate Mrs Y's charges and pay financial redress.

  • North East Lincolnshire Council (21 016 788)

    Statement Upheld Charging 30-Mar-2022

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care provided to Ms Y by the Council. This is because parts of the complaint are about events which happened too long ago for us to investigate now. There is also no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its recent decision regarding financial contributions Ms Y was required to make towards her care. The Council has also provided an suitable remedy for significant delays in responding to the complaint.

  • Lilies Home Care Ltd (21 010 606)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 30-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the Care Provider's actions in relation to her mother's care charges. The Care Provider was not at fault.

  • Staffordshire County Council (21 006 024)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 30-Mar-2022

    Summary: There was no fault in the Council's assessment of Mr X's disability expenses for heating.

  • Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 008 214)

    Statement Upheld Charging 29-Mar-2022

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the amount the Council charged the complainant for his care. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would add to the Council's response or achieve anything more for the complainant.