Charging


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Priory Mews Healthcare Ltd (23 000 998)

    Report Upheld Charging 11-Jul-2024

    Summary: We investigated a complaint about the residential services provided to the complainant. We found Priory Mews Healthcare Limited did not notify Mr X promptly of the fees payable for his mother’s care once she became self-funding. These faults meant Mr X received a large and unexpected invoice from the care provider. As a result he moved his mother from this home to a less expensive home, as he would have done sooner had he known of the actual fees. As a result, Mr X suffered injustice and his mother suffered the distress of moving to another home.

  • Lancashire County Council (24 000 889)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 10-Jun-2024

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

  • Trafford Council (23 014 013)

    Statement Upheld Charging 09-Jun-2024

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to reduce Ms Y’s care package after it was temporarily increased. The Council was at fault for increasing the package without telling Ms Y, in how it decided to increase the package, for delay reviewing it and delay progressing obtaining a hoist for Ms Y. This caused Ms Y distress and meant she paid for care she did not need. The Council will reimburse Ms Y the extra money she paid during this time and issue staff reminders.

  • London Borough of Havering (23 015 037)

    Statement Upheld Charging 09-Jun-2024

    Summary: Mrs X says the Council was wrong to charge her for a stay in a care home and delayed telling her about the cost. Mrs X’s stay in the care home did not fall in an exception category. However, the Council failed to properly consider the care and support statutory guidance about temporary stays in care homes and failed to keep detailed records about the advice provided about the cost. An apology, a new financial assessment and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

  • Raj & Knoll Limited (23 021 025)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 09-Jun-2024

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about Mrs B’s care provider increasing her care fees. This is because we could not add to the Care Provider’s responses or make a different finding of the kind Mr C wants.

  • London Borough of Bromley (23 015 349)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 06-Jun-2024

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council incorrectly declined their request for support with care fees, failed to properly consider their evidence and based its decision on deprivation of a property sale asset on wrong assumptions. We do not find fault in the Council’s actions.

  • Durham County Council (23 015 971)

    Statement Upheld Charging 06-Jun-2024

    Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of Mr and Mrs Y. Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with Mrs Y’s care charges. He also complained communication from the Council was poor. Mr X said the matter impacted Mr Y’s health and finances. There was fault in the way the Council did not follow policy consistently and communication was poor. The Council has taken appropriate action to remedy any injustice caused by this fault.

  • Leicestershire County Council (23 017 894)

    Statement Upheld Charging 05-Jun-2024

    Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council dealt with Mr Y, her late husband’s non-residential care charges. The Council was at fault for its failure to complete a financial assessment for Mr Y in 2021 and its failure to inform the family about his assessed contribution. The Council was also at fault for its delay with issuing an invoice for Mr Y’s care charges. This caused injustice to Mrs X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

  • Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (23 015 496)

    Statement Upheld Charging 04-Jun-2024

    Summary: There was fault by the Council as it failed to properly consider whether a contribution towards household costs should be deducted during the financial assessment process for care costs. Carrying out a reassessment and backdating any overpayment to the family remedies the injustice.

  • Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (24 000 822)

    Statement Upheld Charging 04-Jun-2024

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his late mother’s financial contributions towards her care costs. We would not achieve anything further by investigating.

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