Archive has 189 results
-
London Borough of Sutton (21 008 880)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 01-Nov-2021
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s mental health team contacting Ms X. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.
-
London Borough of Croydon (20 013 023)
Statement Upheld Other 27-Oct-2021
Summary: Ms Y complained care staff left her partner, Mr X, with urine in his bottle, faeces on both a sponge in the sink and on a towel in the bedroom on 31 January 2020. Ms Y complained about the care Mr X received and about the failure to respond to her complaints. Ms Y says this impacted Mr X’s mental health and her relationship with Mr X. The Ombudsman does not find fault, causing a significant personal injustice to Mr X or Ms Y, with the care provided or completion of Care Plan reviews. The Ombudsman does find fault with how the Council managed and responded to Ms Y’s complaints. The Council agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendation to apologise to Ms Y and Mr X and provides each with a payment of £100 to reflect the frustration, distress, inconvenience caused.
-
Devon County Council (21 000 248)
Statement Upheld Other 27-Oct-2021
Summary: Mr D complains the Council relayed unfounded concerns to the Office of the Public Guardian about his capacity to care for his wife and act as her lasting power of attorney. He also complains the Council failed to address poor time keeping by carers or investigate allegations he was rude to care staff. At this stage, we found the Council was at fault for failing to address the punctuality of care staff. This caused Mr D distress and uncertainty so we have recommended a number of remedies. There is no evidence to suggest any other fault by the Council. Further, we have no jurisdiction to investigate concerns raised about Mr D’s lasting power of attorney. This is because these matters were considered by the court of protection.
-
Manchester City Council (21 000 833)
Statement Not upheld Other 27-Oct-2021
Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her son, Mr Y, about the Council’s actions in placing a neighbour inappropriately and dealing with their behaviour. The neighbour’s behaviour caused Mr Y significant distress and caused a significant risk to his health and wellbeing. We found the Council was not at fault in the way it dealt with this.
-
Statement Upheld Other 26-Oct-2021
Summary: Mr B acts as Mr C’s deputy respect of finances. He complained that the Council failed to consult him when Mr C’s residential care home changed to supported living accommodation and failed to respond to his requests for information. The Ombudsman finds the Council was not at fault in failing to consult Mr C, but it should have informed him about the change sooner. The Council responded to Mr C’s request for information but failed to keep him informed about the delay in responding to his complaint. It has agreed to apologise for this.
-
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 006 974)
Statement Upheld Other 26-Oct-2021
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Council responding to Mrs X’s husband when he had a fall at home. This is because the Council has already taken action to address the complaint and has also agreed to pay Mr and Mrs X £250 to acknowledge the distress caused. It is unlikely an investigation would result in a different outcome.
-
Cambridgeshire County Council (20 010 494)
Statement Upheld Other 21-Oct-2021
Summary: We did not uphold Ms X’s complaint about her son Mr Y’s care and support at a supported living placement. There was fault in the Council’s complaint handling. The Council will apologise for the avoidable time and trouble to Ms X.
-
London Borough of Croydon (21 000 838)
Statement Upheld Other 19-Oct-2021
Summary: The Council failed to review Mrs X’s carers assessment.
-
Lancashire County Council (21 007 728)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 19-Oct-2021
Summary: Mr X complains about the behaviour of a family member’s social worker. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
-
London Borough of Hillingdon (21 007 629)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 18-Oct-2021
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council officer contacting the complainant’s GP surgery with concerns she might have dementia. This is because we would be unable to add to the response already provided via the Council’s investigation.