Recent statements in this category are shown below:
Statement Upheld Charging 03-Sep-2019
Summary: The Council did not carry out regular financial reassessments of a service users ability to contribute towards day centre care costs. There is evidence that it told the user of changes to a direct debit amount and that she needed to pay the cost of the day centre. The Council's offer to backdate a financial assessment and to replay any fees charged when the user did not attend, along with a £250 payment for time and trouble remedies the injustice caused.
Statement Upheld Charging 28-Aug-2019
Summary: Mr X complained the Council sent him a bill for care charges in a format he could not understand and without telling him it had carried out an assessment. On the evidence seen, the Council was at fault. It has remedied the injustice caused by cancelling the care charges from its bill and by refunding some of the charges Mr X paid for his care.
Statement Upheld Charging 27-Aug-2019
Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain the Council did not provide proper support and information when Mrs B's mother, Mrs X, was to be discharged from hospital. That meant they were liable for a top up payment for care fees which they cannot afford. There was fault by the Council in not providing written information to Mr and Mrs B about the options for Mrs X's care and the associated costs. The action the Council has agreed to take provides a satisfactory resolution of the complaint.
Statement Not upheld Charging 27-Aug-2019
Summary: The Complainant says the Council has increased his client contribution for adult care services, which he cannot afford to pay. The change leaves Mr C with no disposable income, but this is not caused by fault of the Council. The Council has correctly assessed his client contribution in accordance with the law and national guidance and considered whether to allow a waiver based on his income and expenditure.
Statement Upheld Charging 26-Aug-2019
Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with the late Mrs Y, and its communication and complaint handling. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault in all these areas and this caused Mr X disproportionate difficulties. The Council has put right the financial injustices it caused Mrs Y. It has also agreed to apologise, pay Mr X £500 for his time, trouble, frustration and stress and take action to avoid similar problems in future.
Statement Not upheld Charging 23-Aug-2019
Summary: There is no evidence the Council failed to provide the proper information to the family when Mr X moved into a new care home.
Statement Not upheld Charging 22-Aug-2019
Summary: The Council was not at fault in how it arranged (and subsequently ended) free reablement support for Mrs B, in its decision not to involve Mr B when she signed support and consent agreements, or in the information it provided to him about her longer-term support. The Council acted in line with Regulations, and both national and local guidance, and there is no evidence of any fault which caused an injustice to Mrs B.
Statement Not upheld Charging 21-Aug-2019
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's decision to change its policy on charging for adult social care and, in particular, its consultation exercise. We have not found fault with the Council's decision-making process.
Statement Upheld Charging 20-Aug-2019
Summary: The Ombudsmen find no fault in the way an NHS Trust and Council handled two discharges from hospital for a man who had undergone an operation. However, the Ombudsmen find the operation was delayed unnecessarily, but poor record keeping by the Trust means we cannot resolve why this happened. The Ombudsmen also find fault in the way the Council and NHS Trust handled the complaint. The Council and Trust have agreed to actions to address the injustice these failings caused.
Statement Upheld Charging 16-Aug-2019
Summary: Mr N complained on behalf of his uncle, Mr X, that the Council provided Mr X with intermediate care and then wrongly charged him both for this and for later care. He also complained the Council failed to include him in assessments about Mr X's care. There was fault in the way the Council carried out Mr X's financial assessment. However, this did not cause him an injustice. The Council should reassess Mr X's financial contribution for the period he was in a residential short stay.