Charging


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Wolverhampton City Council (17 000 343)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 21-Aug-2017

    Summary: Mr A complains the Council failed to understand the difficulties faced by his family in bringing their complaint to the Council because it lacks sufficient deaf awareness. While there was some limited fault by the Council in how it dealt with Mr A's complaint, it has addressed in some detail the lessons it has learnt from dealing with it and there are insufficient grounds to warrant any further investigation by the Ombudsman.

  • Warrington Council (16 019 002)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 17-Aug-2017

    Summary: The Council was not at fault in how it arranged respite care for Mrs X after she was discharged from hospital, and how it explained the associated charges to Mrs X.

  • Worcestershire County Council (17 005 674)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 15-Aug-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigation Mrs X's complaint the Council wrongly decided her mother, Mrs Y, deprived herself of assets to avoid paying care charges. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to exercise our discretion and now investigate. There is also no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision. It is unlikely further investigation would find fault.

  • Sheffield City Council (16 015 414)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 14-Aug-2017

    Summary: There is no fault in the decision to charge Mr C for his care in a nursing home. The Council is entitled to pursue Mr C's estate for outstanding charges.

  • Lancashire County Council (17 006 012)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 10-Aug-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the complainant's late wife's care home fees. This is because it is a late complaint and because the Ombudsman has already considered parts of the complaint.

  • Bath and North East Somerset Council (16 019 162)

    Statement Upheld Charging 08-Aug-2017

    Summary: The Council failed to explain that Mr B would have to pay more than his usual respite charge for a residential placement. It should therefore write off the outstanding care fees. It also took too long to recover these care fees which caused additional confusion and distress.

  • Essex County Council (16 005 898)

    Statement Upheld Charging 08-Aug-2017

    Summary: The Council unreasonably delayed reviewing Mr X's care needs and carrying out a financial assessment but this did not prevent his return home or affect his liability to pay care costs.

  • Wolverhampton City Council (16 008 387)

    Statement Upheld Charging 08-Aug-2017

    Summary: There was fault in the Council's failure to find a suitable nursing home for Mrs D within her personal budget and in its request that the family pays a top-up fee. The Ombudsman has recommended a remedy.

  • St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (17 000 828)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 07-Aug-2017

    Summary: The Council was not at fault over its decision to introduce a charge for a second carer.

  • Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (17 004 960)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 03-Aug-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the care placement and funding for the complainant's mother. This is because the complaint is made late and there is no good reason to investigate it now.

;