Charging


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Kent County Council (20 005 027)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 16-Mar-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to treat savings in his wife's sole bank account as a joint asset when calculating her contribution towards the cost of her residential care. We find the Council was not at fault in treating the savings as belonging solely to Mrs X.

  • Lincolnshire County Council (20 004 464)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 15-Mar-2021

    Summary: There is no fault in the Council's decision making during the financial assessment process. The Council has considered the law, guidance and reached a decision that deprivation of capital has occurred. The Council has reached a view on the amount of capital it will disregard without fault. New explanations of the gifting made at appeal had not been made to the Council before and it is at the Council's discretion if it wants to consider a new assessment of this information.

  • Staffordshire County Council (20 004 169)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 09-Mar-2021

    Summary: Miss X, Y's legal deputy, complained on behalf of his estate that the Council failed to include various costs that should be regarded as Disability Related Expenditure in his financial assessment. She also questioned the Council's calculation of Y's Minimum Income Guarantee. We found no evidence of fault by the Council and for this reason we ended our investigation.

  • East Sussex County Council (20 002 657)

    Statement Upheld Charging 09-Mar-2021

    Summary: An advocate complained on behalf of Mr X about how the Council communicated changes to the charges for care it provides. There is no fault in how the Council communicated the changes including the decision not to carry out a face to face assessment. There was fault in respect of the setting up of a direct debit. The Council has apologised for the faults and credited an amount to Mr X's account to acknowledge the time and trouble associated with this.

  • Peterborough City Council (20 002 999)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 08-Mar-2021

    Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the Council's decision that Mrs X deliberately deprived herself of capital with the intention of decreasing her liability for care charges. The Council also considered whether Mrs X's daughter had a beneficial interest in one property without fault. The Council is willing to consider any further evidence the family has and has paid Mrs X's care charges until the complaint is decided.

  • Mr & Mrs A Mangaliji (19 012 054)

    Statement Upheld Charging 08-Mar-2021

    Summary: The Care Provider's contract is not in line with the Competition and Markets Authorities (CMA) guidance about fair contract terms. The Care Provider has agreed to review its contract to ensure it is in line with CMA guidance and to apologise to Mr C for the uncertainty caused by its actions.

  • City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (20 001 072)

    Statement Upheld Charging 05-Mar-2021

    Summary: The Council was at fault for delaying in carrying out an assessment of Mrs Y and for the care she received at the care home. This resulted in it taking longer to establish Mrs Y's care needs and uncertainty for her family concerning the level of care she received. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused.

  • Isle of Wight Council (20 006 407)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 02-Mar-2021

    Summary: There is evidence to show Mr and Mrs X agreed to Mr X's discharge to a care home while Mrs X had surgery, and that the Council gave them proper information about the financial implications.

  • Lancashire County Council (19 019 371)

    Statement Upheld Charging 02-Mar-2021

    Summary: The Council failed to communicate properly with the late Mrs X. Officers wrote to her at the wrong address and telephoned her when she could no longer speak. Its actions caused significant distress in Mrs X's last months, and the Council will now apologise to her daughter Ms Y, review its processes and offer a sum in recognition of the distress.

  • London Borough of Hillingdon (20 002 529)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 01-Mar-2021

    Summary: Miss X complained the Council refused to backdate her late mother's financial assessment to disregard her property. The Council was not at fault. It carried out Mrs F's financial assessment without fault when it decided not to disregard her property in 2018. The Council disregarded the property from December 2019 onwards after Miss X provided it with new information. However, there was no obligation for the Council to backdate this to 2018.

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.