Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • London Borough of Enfield (19 013 455)

    Statement Upheld Charging 01-Apr-2020

    Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's decision that his father has deliberately deprived himself of capital to avoid care costs. The Council has not properly applied the two tests set out in the Care and Support Statutory Guidance for making such decisions. However, it is clear from the information Mr X has provided that, if the Council had applied the tests properly, it would have reached the same decision.

  • Warwickshire County Council (19 012 874)

    Statement Upheld Charging 31-Mar-2020

    Summary: the Council has written off a care home charge for Mr X's mother's short stay in a residential care home. This is a satisfactory remedy and the Ombudsman has therefore ended the investigation of Mr X's complaint.

  • Cornwall Council (19 012 822)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 27-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman has discontinued its investigation into Mrs C's complaint as there is an ongoing safeguarding enquiry into the same matter.

  • Surrey County Council (18 019 116)

    Statement Upheld Charging 24-Mar-2020

    Summary: Ms Y complains the Council was at fault in its handling of her father's care needs. We have found some evidence of fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to reconsider if Home CL met her father's assessed needs and take the appropriate action if it decides it did not.

  • Bristol City Council (19 008 584)

    Statement Upheld Charging 23-Mar-2020

    Summary: Mr C's daughter, Mrs D, says the Council failed to invoice him for adult social care services by email, as requested, for over a year. It then presented a bill for nearly £9,000 which he could not pay. She says this caused her and Mr C stress and means he cannot afford necessary repairs on his home. The Council was at fault for its failure to send invoices by email. But this fault caused limited injustice. Mrs D knew what the services cost and how long Mr C had received them without receiving invoices by email. The Council has agreed to pay Mr C £100 and to accept a reasonable repayment plan.

  • Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (19 008 431)

    Statement Upheld Charging 20-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Council did not adequately explain the complainant would be required to pay an assessed contribution towards the costs of a nursing home placement. This meant her family received unexpected invoices after the placement ended. The Council has agreed to apologise for this.

  • Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (19 011 344)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 20-Mar-2020

    Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to deal properly with charges for her father's care in 2014 and waited until 2019 to pursue them, despite complaining about them in 2014. The Council has offered to waive the charges and apologise to the family. We will discontinue the investigation as there is nothing more we can achieve.

  • London Borough of Tower Hamlets (19 008 359)

    Statement Upheld Charging 18-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Council is at fault as it did not give adequate consideration to Ms X's appeal of January 2018 for disability related expenditure. The fault by the Council caused uncertainty and avoidable time and trouble to Ms X. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising to Ms X and making a payment of £100 to Ms X which is in addition to a payment offered of £100 already offered by the Council.

  • Cornwall Council (19 010 309)

    Statement Upheld Charging 16-Mar-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's decision to include her father's share of the home he shared with his wife in his financial assessment. The Council has not dealt with this matter properly, which leaves some doubt over whether it has made the right decision. It therefore needs to reconsider its decision.

  • Norfolk County Council (18 018 648)

    Statement Upheld Charging 12-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B's complaint about an overpayment of direct payments. This is because the Council resolved the complaint by taking action with which Mr B and the Ombudsman are satisfied.