Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Northamptonshire County Council (18 014 982)

    Statement Upheld Charging 20-May-2019

    Summary: Mrs B complained the Council misled her about the amount her mother would have to pay towards her residential care costs and delayed invoicing her for the full amount. The Council had told Mrs B about the likely cost of residential care but delayed amending the account which meant Mrs B received invoices at the community care rate for five months longer than she should have. The Council should write off 50% of the additional charge for that five-month period and arrange a payment plan for the remaining arrears.

  • London Borough of Bromley (18 006 242)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 15-May-2019

    Summary: there is no fault in the assessment of Miss D's social care needs, and the offer of a retrospective financial assessment is the most appropriate way to progress Mr and Mrs P's complaint about Miss D's care charges.

  • London Borough of Croydon (18 010 983)

    Statement Upheld Charging 14-May-2019

    Summary: Ms T complains that the Council failed to tell her she would have to pay for the cost of her care when she needed support following a fractured knee and that the charges are incorrect. She also says the Council delayed in sending her a financial assessment form and invoices. The Ombudsman finds the Council delayed in issuing invoices to Ms T but this did not cause her a significant injustice. The Ombudsman does not uphold the remainder of Ms T's complaints.

  • Surrey County Council (18 002 952)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 10-May-2019

    Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the Council's decision to financially assess Mr B and inits calculation of a contribution based on limited information.

  • Wolverhampton City Council (17 013 455)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 09-May-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsmen has not found fault by a Council, an NHS Trust or a CCG with their assessment and/or consideration of continuing healthcare funding. The Ombudsmen found fault by a GP Practice in not considering fast-tracking a continuing healthcare assessment. The Practice has already accepted the fault and taken action to learn from the complaint. A retrospective continuing healthcare review which the CCG has agreed to will remedy any potential financial injustice.

  • Gloucestershire County Council (18 001 974)

    Statement Upheld Charging 02-May-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council has chased outstanding charges for care delivered to her late father. There was fault in the way the Council communicated with Mrs X about her father's financial assessment. This caused Mrs X uncertainty and avoidable distress. The Council agreed to carry out a financial assessment based on the information Mrs X can provide and recalculate any charges based on the information in Mr Y's support plan. The Council will also apologise to Mrs X and pay her £250 in recognition of the distress caused by the delay in contacting her about her father's financial assessment.

  • Cornwall Council (18 016 770)

    Statement Upheld Charging 01-May-2019

    Summary: Mrs F complains the Council failed to deal properly with the assessment of Mrs H's finances. The Council accepts Mrs F did not receive an acceptable level of customer service and has apologised. It also needs to pay financial redress and consider what action it needs to take to prevent similar problems from happening again.

  • Norfolk County Council (18 012 762)

    Statement Upheld Charging 29-Apr-2019

    Summary: The Council gave incorrect advice to Mrs X about her mother's residential care. It refused to meet the full cost of the care and required Mrs X to pay a top up. It failed to establish if Mrs X's mother could be moved to a cheaper home without detriment to her health. The Council acknowledged its failings in this case and proposed a remedy in recognition of the injustice caused.

  • Essex County Council (18 006 323)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 23-Apr-2019

    Summary: Miss X complains that the Council charged her sister, Miss Y when she had previously been exempt, and did not tell her. She says it kept changing the amount and allowed a debt of over £4,000 to build up. She says this caused Miss Y financial hardship and she has had to cancel her care. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the Council's actions.

  • Somerset County Council (18 010 557)

    Statement Upheld Charging 16-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's decision not to disregard his mother's property, where he lives, when calculating how much she needs to pay for her care. The Council failed to show how it considered the individual circumstances of his case when reaching its decision. The Council agreed a different officer will reconsider his request and give Mr X a more detailed explanation for any decision they make.