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:

  • Lincolnshire County Council (21 014 642)

    Statement Upheld Charging 17-May-2022

    Summary: The Council was at fault, as it invoiced for more hours of care than were provided for several reasons. The Council has credited the service user for the hours of care that were not provided and this is a satisfactory remedy to the complaint.

  • Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (21 007 570)

    Statement Upheld Charging 16-May-2022

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council unfairly charged backdated care contributions for her son's care. We consider there is no fault regarding the backdated charge. However, there is evidence of fault in the Council's communications, and we recommended a remedy.

  • Living Comforts Ltd aka Home Instead (21 007 966)

    Statement Upheld Charging 16-May-2022

    Summary: Mrs X complained the provider of her mother, Mrs Y's, home care required an unreasonable period of notice to cancel the contract. There was fault in how the care provider failed to give Mrs Y or her family a copy of the terms and conditions of her care in good time before her care started. Although this did not cause Mrs Y an injustice, it could have done in different circumstances. The Care Provider has reviewed how it provides this information in future. I am satisfied with the action the Care Provider has taken.

  • Gloucestershire County Council (21 004 028)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 12-May-2022

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's handling of her husband's (Mr X) care home placement following his discharge from hospital. There was no fault in the way the Council sought to identify suitable care home placements within Mr X's personal budget nor that it forced Mrs X into agreeing to make top-up payments for the care home of her choice.

  • West Sussex County Council (21 009 958)

    Statement Upheld Charging 12-May-2022

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council charged her wrongly for non-residential care. The Council did not charge Mrs X correctly and in good time, or properly explain what the charges were for. This resulted in avoidable financial loss, distress, and confusion, for which the Council agreed to pay a financial remedy to Mrs X. It will also review the information it provides when arranging non-residential care.

  • Surrey County Council (21 013 360)

    Statement Upheld Charging 11-May-2022

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's decision to charge her daughter for care, causing distress and financial loss. We found no fault in the Council's decision making but we found fault in its communications. We recommended the Council take action to prevent injustice to others in future.

  • 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.