Adult care services archive 2015-2016


Archive has 1459 results

  • Staffordshire County Council (14 019 197)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 31-Mar-2016

    Summary: There is no fault in the way the Council assessed the complainant's needs as a carer and those of her son, Mr C. The CCG properly considered Mr C's needs before deciding his entitlement to NHS funding. The CCG and the Council failed to provide Mr C with day services over a six year period. They also failed to meet the needs of the complainant and her husband who provided informal care to Mr C. The Ombudsmen recommend the CCG and the Council apologise to Mr C and his parents and pay a financial remedy to acknowledge their prolonged distress, anxiety and inconvenience.

  • London Borough of Ealing (15 004 619)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 31-Mar-2016

    Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the Council's decision to start charging Mr X for his care.

  • Dr Gurkirit Kalkat and Mr GS Nijjar (15 011 927)

    Statement Not upheld Residential care 31-Mar-2016

    Summary: The complaint is about the care the care provider gave to a resident and about a breach of data protection. I have found no fault in the parts of the complaint I have investigated. But I have not investigated some parts of the complaint, as there are other bodies better able to deal with those issues.

  • Caring Homes Healthcare Group Limited (15 011 984)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 31-Mar-2016

    Summary: Caring Homes Healthcare Group Limited failed to ensure it always provided good quality care to Mrs Y while she lived in one of its care homes but it has offered an appropriate remedy.

  • Nottingham City Council (15 013 641)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 31-Mar-2016

    Summary: The Ombudsman found fault on the complaint made by Ms P on behalf of her late mother, Mrs Q, about the standard of care she received at a residential care home during a respite stay arranged and funded by the Council. The care home's record keeping was poor. It failed to keep next of kin details, medical information to give the hospital on her admission, and records about her weight. The agreed action, which includes a written apology, a payment of £175 to Ms P, and ensuring the home carried out recommendations, remedies the avoidable injustice caused.

  • Norfolk County Council (15 018 644)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 31-Mar-2016

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint alleging the complainant's son is receiving a reduced service from the Council. This is because the Council has resolved the matter.

  • Worcestershire County Council (15 017 205)

    Statement Not upheld Residential care 31-Mar-2016

    Summary: The complaint is not upheld as there is not enough evidence to find the Council at fault for how it arranged respite care for the complainant or for the quality of that care.

  • Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (15 019 152)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Transport 30-Mar-2016

    Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the Council's decision to not renew Mrs X's disabled person's Blue Badge. The Council has assessed her in line with the Guidelines issued by the Department for Transport. The Council has taken Mrs X's individual circumstances into consideration in reaching its decision.

  • Warwickshire County Council (15 018 965)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Transport 30-Mar-2016

    Summary: There appears to be no evidence of fault in the Council's decision to not renew Mr X's disabled person's Blue Badge. The Council has assessed him in line with the Guidelines issued by the Department for Transport. The Council has taken Mr X's individual circumstances into consideration in reaching its decision. The Ombudsman shall not be investigating this complaint.

  • Baylham Care Centre LTD (15 018 625)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Residential care 30-Mar-2016

    Summary: Mrs X is unhappy with the care her mother received during her 3 day respite stay at this care home. The home has investigated her concerns and has concluded that the care was reasonable. The Ombudsman shall not investigate this complaint as it is very unlikely that she would reach a different conclusion to that of the home.

;