London Borough of Enfield (24 021 742)

Statement Upheld Charging 22-Sep-2025

Summary: The Council delayed assessing Mrs Y’s contribution to her care charges which resulted in a large debt accruing. It sent an inaccurate letter stating she was to pay the full cost due to her level of savings which caused her distress. It also delayed responding to her daughter, Ms X’s, complaint which caused frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise, make payments and offer a repayment plan to acknowledge the impact of its fault. It will also review its procedures to ensure it follows up financial assessments and that letters accurately reflect the situation.

Norfolk County Council (24 020 292)

Statement Upheld Charging 21-Sep-2025

Summary: Mr X complained the Council provided incorrect and misleading information about funding his mother’s residential care. We found the Council at fault because of poor communication and delay which caused avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr X and take action to improve its service.

Worcestershire County Council (24 020 635)

Statement Upheld Charging 21-Sep-2025

Summary: Mrs B complained on behalf of her father, Mr C that the Council had failed to make reasonable adjustments to ensure Mr C could read and understand financial information about his care costs, despite knowing he had a visual impairment. We found fault in the Council’s actions which meant Mr C did not understand he had to pay his care costs allowing a large debt to build up over nearly two years. This caused Mr C uncertainty and distress and Mrs B distress on receiving the invoice. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and Mr C, make symbolic payments to them both and improve its procedures for the future.

London Borough of Hounslow (24 017 677)

Statement Upheld Charging 21-Sep-2025

Summary: Ms B complained an NHS Trust and a Council were wrong to decide her father was not eligible for reablement care when he left hospital. She also complained that they did not involve the family adequately in the discharge process. We have not found fault in how the organisations made their decisions or how they involved the family. However, we have found fault in how the organisations handled Ms B’s complaint. We have asked the Trust and the Council to apologise for the impact this had.

Medway Council (24 015 481)

Statement Upheld Charging 17-Sep-2025

Summary: Mrs X complains on behalf of her late mother-in-law, Mrs Y, the council failed to take into account her rent and bills when calculating charges for her care home. Mrs X says Mrs Y does not have enough funds to cover the fees being requested by the Council. Mrs X says this has caused the family distress. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for delay in confirming what information it needed to complete the financial assessment. The Council has agreed to issue an apology, discuss the information it needs to complete the assessment and completes service improvements.

Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (24 018 192)

Statement Upheld Charging 17-Sep-2025

Summary: Mr B complained the Council reclaimed surplus direct payment funds from his son, Mr C’s, direct payment account which left him without respite support. He also complained the Council told the family they could no longer use their respite provider as they did not have a Care Quality Commission (CQC) registration. There was fault by the Council. The Council did not ensure annual reviews were carried out for Mr C’s direct payment account. Because of the fault, Mr B and Mr C suffered distress and uncertainty while the Council investigated matters and carried out a review of Mr C’s direct payment account. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and Mr C, make symbolic payments, and issue staff briefings.

East Sussex County Council (25 003 869)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 17-Sep-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in the Council assessing Ms Y’s needs and finances. It is unlikely that further investigation would achieve a different outcome. It is open to Mrs X to complain separately about subsequent events.

London Borough of Enfield (24 009 582)

Statement Upheld Charging 16-Sep-2025

Summary: Mr X complained about Mr Y’s care charges. Mr X said Mr Y was caused distress by a large, unexpected bill. We find the Council at fault for not recording its decision making or acting on Mr X’s request for the care hours to be reduced. The Council has agreed to apologise and waive the charges.

Churchfields Care Home Limited (24 021 535)

Statement Upheld Charging 16-Sep-2025

Summary: Mr X complained that the Care Provider did not pass on Funded Nursing Care (FNC) contribution payments by deducting these from his wife’s (Mrs X) care home fees. We found the Care Provider was at fault as the care home agreement with Mrs X was silent on FNC and how these NHS-based contributions are treated against its overall fee structure and the services contractually agreed. This caused Mr and Mrs X uncertainty with respect to how the care home agreement operated. The Care Provider has agreed to apologise to remedy the uncertainty caused.

Redcar & Cleveland Council (25 002 984)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 16-Sep-2025

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to tell her and her husband that he would have to contribute towards the cost of his care. There is not enough evidence of fault or injustice to warrant an investigation.