Archive has 1761 results
-
East Sussex County Council (21 007 637)
Statement Upheld Other 28-Mar-2022
Summary: Mrs B complained about the care provided to her late husband, Mr B, by a care provider commissioned by the Council and the CCG to meet his aftercare needs. We found the care provider failed to properly record Mrs B’s late husband’s needs around eating and food consistency. As a result, Mrs B is left with uncertainty about whether the care provider met his needs in this area. We also found the care provider failed at times to communicate with Mrs B about changes in her husband’s health despite her being his attorney for health and welfare. This is likely to have caused her avoidable distress. However, the care provider acted to improve when it dealt with Mrs B’s complaint. The Council and the CCG have agreed to our recommendations and will apologise to Mrs B and pay her £250 each.
-
Statement Upheld Transport 28-Mar-2022
Summary: Mr B complains the Council has not properly assessed his eligibility for a Blue Badge. The Council considered the evidence Mr B provided but it told Mr B that he could not provide information from his GP and this was fault. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B. The Council agreed to allow Mr B to send in further evidence and to provide him with an assessment to consider that evidence.
-
London Borough of Hackney (21 013 253)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 28-Mar-2022
Summary: Ms B complains on behalf of her mother, Ms A, about her care and treatment. We will not investigate the complaint as we are not satisfied Ms A has fully consented to Ms B complaining to us on her behalf. We do not therefore consider Ms B suitable to bring the complaint to us.
-
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (21 016 214)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 28-Mar-2022
Summary: The investigation into this complaint is discontinued. The Council acknowledged fault in the way it dealt with requests for social care support for Mr Y, apologised and took steps to remedy the situation before the complaint came to this office. Any further investigation by this office could not achieve more.
-
Shropshire Council (21 016 620)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 28-Mar-2022
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of the complainant’s daughter’s financial contribution to the cost of her non-residential care. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
-
The Orders Of St. John Care Trust (21 016 719)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Residential care 28-Mar-2022
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about staffing levels at a care home. The Care Quality Commission is the regulator of care services and is better placed to consider the concerns.
-
Cygnet Care Limited (21 017 372)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Residential care 28-Mar-2022
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the loss of Mr X’s mother’s personal items after she passed away in a care home. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the actions of the Care Provider.
-
London Borough of Camden (20 007 149)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 28-Mar-2022
Summary: The Ombudsmen have decided not to investigate Mrs A’s complaint about her mother’s care and support between 2003 and 2018. There is insufficient evidence of serious or continuing injustice and given the time that has passed, investigation is unlikely to achieve more. The Ombudsmen will not investigate more recent complaints because these have not yet been through the complaints procedures with the relevant organisations.
-
Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (21 008 009)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 27-Mar-2022
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed assessing her care needs and completing a financial assessment. There was no fault in the way the Council assessed Mrs X’s care needs or completed her financial assessment. The Council delayed sorting out Mrs X’s payments and respite and failed to clearly explain why it would not pay her privately employed personal assistant to support her. It has since credited the backdated payments to Mrs X, although it failed to tell her it had done so. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X, pay her £150 to acknowledge the frustration the delays caused and to explain how the backdated payments have been credited to her account.
-
Lincolnshire County Council (21 009 526)
Statement Upheld Charging 27-Mar-2022
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to inform her of the change in charges to respite care for her husband. She had paid the flat rate to the care home directly but later received a bill for double the amount. Mrs X complained to the Council but there was a delay in their response. We find fault with the Council for delay and miscommunication. This fault has caused Mrs X distress and frustration and we recommend a payment in remedy.