Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • London Borough of Bromley (20 005 531)

    Statement Upheld Charging 23-Feb-2021

    Summary: The Council delayed completing a financial assessment to confirm how much Mr C should pay towards his adult social care support. This meant when the charge was confirmed, and the Council sent a bill for the services, Mr C was surprised to find he owed over £3000. The Council has apologised for its delay, and confirmed Mr C can pay the arrears in instalments. This is appropriate action in response, and there is nothing further the Ombudsman can add.

  • Northumberland County Council (20 004 092)

    Statement Upheld Charging 23-Feb-2021

    Summary: The Council has recognised and apologised for faults in a delayed council tax refund, and some aspects of its financial assessments for community support and residential care. I consider the actions taken and the apologies provided are sufficient to remedy the errors made. I do not find fault in the Council's approach to assessing Mr D's finances for charges related to his long-term residential care. It has made legitimate enquiries about withdrawals from a bank account.

  • HC-One Oval Limited (20 002 335)

    Statement Upheld Charging 23-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mrs C complained about the care home's fee and the way in which the family was informed about it by the care home. We found fault because the care home had charged an incorrect (higher) rate. The care provider has agreed to apologise for this and correct the corresponding invoices.

  • London Borough of Islington (19 018 941)

    Statement Upheld Charging 18-Feb-2021

    Summary: The Council acknowledges it failed to provide the proper information about charging when Mrs Y was admitted to a care home for a period of assessment. The Council agrees to waive the charges for the relevant six-week period.

  • Surrey County Council (20 004 804)

    Statement Upheld Charging 16-Feb-2021

    Summary: The Council was at fault in the way it handled an increase in a person's residential care fees. It fettered its discretion by adhering to a rigid interpretation of its fee guidelines, and also allowed an informal third-party top-up arrangement, both of which conflict with the statutory guidance. The Council has agreed to remedy this by reimbursing the money paid via this arrangement. We cannot investigate a separate complaint, about Council Tax and the way the Council has set its general budget, because this affects all or most people in the area and so falls outside our jurisdiction.

  • London Residential Healthcare Limited (20 003 469)

    Statement Upheld Charging 16-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mrs B complained about the care her late father received at one of the Provider's care homes. There was fault in the Care Home's record-keeping and its complaints handling, causing distress and uncertainty to Mrs B about the care her father received. It has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and reduce the amount she owes for Mr X's care. It also agreed to review its processes and ensure its staff follow its policies and procedures.

  • Blackburn with Darwen Council (20 004 504)

    Statement Upheld Charging 16-Feb-2021

    Summary: The Council's offer to reimburse the overpayment by Mr X to the care provider while Mrs Y was still a full-cost payer remedies any outstanding injustice.

  • Norfolk County Council (20 003 947)

    Statement Upheld Charging 16-Feb-2021

    Summary: There was fault by the Council in the way it managed a transition between care providers and poor communication about whether or not Mr Y could bank unused care hours. This caused confusion, avoidable distress and a gap of three months in Mr Y's care provision. The Council has already taken some action to remedy the injustice by crediting/waiving charges. It will also make payments of £250 and £1000 to Ms X and Mr Y respectively and offer a further apology.

  • Cornwall Council (20 001 282)

    Statement Upheld Charging 15-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with the arrangements for his sister's care, and its payment for the care he and his mother provided, during the period between the care packages it commissioned for her. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council causing injustice. It has agreed to remedy this by making an apology and financial payments.

  • Gloucestershire County Council (20 000 225)

    Statement Upheld Charging 12-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to inform him or his brother's Care Home that his brother, Mr Z was a self-funder. The Council provided both Mr X and the Care Home with timely information about Mr Z's status as a self-funder. It was at fault when it continued to pay Mr Z's fees to the Care Home, but this did not cause an injustice.

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.