What do complaints teach us about end of life care?

See our latest report on the lessons that can be learnt from our complaints about end of life care given in care homes and in the home.

Charging


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (25 012 049)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 07-Jul-2026

    Summary: The Council was not at fault in the way it charged Mr X for his care. His savings were correctly assessed as capital for the relevant period. Since his placement changed from residential care there has been no charge.

  • Norfolk County Council (25 023 582)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 07-Jul-2026

    Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint, made on behalf of Mrs X, about the Council’s decision to treat financial gifts from Mrs X’s accounts to family members as a deprivation of assets and notional capital for care fees purposes. There is not enough evidence of Council fault to justify us investigating.

  • Staffordshire County Council (25 030 360)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 07-Jul-2026

    Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council recovering funds from the proceeds of the sale of her late parent’s property in 2019. The complaint is late, and there is no good reason to investigate it now.

  • London Borough of Ealing (25 012 819)

    Statement Upheld Charging 05-Jul-2026

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed telling him about his care charges. We find the Council was at fault for its delay in completing Mr X’s financial assessment and for its delay in contacting him for his financial information. This meant Mr X lost the opportunity to make a fully informed decision about his care package before it started. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and implement a service improvement.

  • London Borough of Harrow (25 021 186)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 05-Jul-2026

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council assessed Mrs Y’s finances to determine how much she should contribute to the cost of her care. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

  • Norfolk County Council (25 025 692)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 02-Jul-2026

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s administration of care home fees as any fault in this regard did not cause the complainant a level of injustice that would warrant our further involvement.

  • RKL Care Ltd (25 014 065)

    Statement Upheld Charging 01-Jul-2026

    Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her late mother, Mrs Y, about the care she received from the Care Provider. We found it at fault for failing to provide Mrs Y with her prescribed medication and for poor record keeping. The Care Provider has apologised and issued a partial refund. It has also agreed to make a symbolic payment and review its procedures. Together, these actions are a suitable remedy.

  • Staffordshire County Council (25 027 842)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 01-Jul-2026

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council assessed Ms X’s finances to calculate her contributions to the cost of her care. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in how it calculated her contribution. Any fault due to delay in the Council reassessing Ms X’s finances did not cause her an injustice.

  • London Borough of Croydon (25 008 126)

    Statement Upheld Charging 29-Jun-2026

    Summary: There was fault in the way the Council applied the section 117 process which caused significant financial injustice to the late Mrs X and as a result to her family through the loss to her estate. The Council has put in place training to improve the knowledge of this legislation and accepts it should repay the care home fees incorrectly incurred.

  • East Sussex County Council (25 014 606)

    Statement Upheld Charging 29-Jun-2026

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to consider Mrs Y and her son, Mr Z’s, full circumstances properly when considering a request for a discretionary property disregard from Mrs Y’s financial assessment for her residential care charges. The Council was at fault for failing to demonstrate it properly considered Mrs X’s appeal. This caused Mrs Y’s family distress. The Council agreed to reconsider the appeal and give guidance to staff in its Adult Social Care service.

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.

Privacy settings