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.

Charging


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Devon County Council (21 009 828)

    Statement Upheld Charging 09-May-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council communicated with him about the costs of care for his late wife Mrs X. Mr X said he received a large, unexpected bill which caused him a great deal of stress and the Council did not answer his questions about this. We find fault with how the Council communicated with Mr X and ask it to apologise, waive the fees, and review its process.

  • Kingsley Care Homes Ltd (21 009 744)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 09-May-2022

    Summary: The care provider acted in accordance with the signed terms and conditions in the way it treated the award of Funded Nursing Care to Mr X.

  • Medway Council (21 018 780)

    Statement Upheld Charging 02-May-2022

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about fees the Council charged the complainant for care. This is because the Council has agreed to cancel the fees.

  • Nottinghamshire County Council (21 011 999)

    Statement Upheld Charging 02-May-2022

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council decided her mother deprived herself of assets before her death. Mrs X also complained the Council took two years from her mother's death to chase her, and her sister, for her mother's care home fees. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council's decision that Mrs X's mother deprived herself of assets. But, the Ombudsman does find fault with the Council's clarity and transparency over its decision and delays causing Mrs X frustration and uncertainty. The Council agreed to the Ombudsman's recommendation to apologise to Mrs X and reduce the outstanding balance owed by £400. The Council has already provided training to its staff.

  • Belgravia Care Home Limited (21 015 165)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 02-May-2022

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the alleged Care Provider's failings during the complainant's admission to a residential care home. This is because the Care Provider has already offered a suitable remedy for the issues raised in the complaint and the complainant is satisfied with the outcome.

  • London Borough of Hillingdon (21 008 031)

    Statement Upheld Charging 28-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's handling of his mother, Mrs Y's, financial assessment during 2021 and early 2022. There was no fault in how the Council financially assessed Mrs Y during 2021 and it was entitled to ask for the further evidence it required. However, since early 2022 the Council has let the matter drift which was fault. It agreed to make a decision and issue Mrs X's financial assessment within one month of this decision.

  • Staffordshire County Council (20 004 037)

    Statement Upheld Charging 25-Apr-2022

    Summary: The Council was at fault in the decision that there had been a deprivation of capital. There was also a delay in completing a financial assessment. The fault caused avoidable uncertainty, time and trouble and a loss of opportunity to have the case properly considered. The Council will review its decision, apologise and make payments set out in this statement.

  • Leicestershire County Council (21 005 029)

    Statement Upheld Charging 19-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mrs Y complained about the reablement service the Council provided for her and her late husband, and the care charges they were asked to pay. We have found fault by the Council, in failing to provide clear information about the review of their reablement care, causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising, waiving some initial charges, and making a payment to Mrs Y to reflect her upset and service improvements.

  • Essex County Council (21 010 309)

    Statement Upheld Charging 19-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to clearly communicate or respond properly to his queries about the payment arrangements for his late mother, Mrs Y's care. The Council was at fault. There were errors in communication around Mrs Y's finances, delays in responding to his complaint, and it failed to keep Mr X updated about Mrs Y's care. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Mr X £200 to acknowledge the uncertainty and frustration this caused. It has agreed to review its procedures to prevent a recurrence of the faults.

  • Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (21 006 231)

    Statement Upheld Charging 12-Apr-2022

    Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of her son, Mr Y, about care and support charges from the Council. She said the Council sent two years' worth of invoices to Mr Y, who did not know he had to contribute to the cost of his care as no one from the Council spoke to him about it. The Ombudsman found fault causing injustice because the Council failed to maintain a proper oversight of Mr Y's care and support and failed to carry out adequate financial reviews.