Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Avondalecare (Kent) Limited (16 010 466)

    Statement Not upheld Other 17-Jul-2017

    Summary: Mr X says is unhappy with the management of a privately run care home near his property. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault by the care home but recommends it amends its complaints policy so that it provides greater clarity for complaints not concerning the care provided to service users. He also recommends the care home considers Mr X's written complaint and meets with him if wishes to do so. The care home agreed.

  • Northumberland Council (16 014 978)

    Statement Upheld Other 14-Jul-2017

    Summary: The Council was not responsible for meeting Mr Y's care needs while an ordinary residence dispute was resolved. However it should have done more to ensure the dispute was resolved. It has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and to pay her £250 to acknowledge the distress caused by its contribution to the delays.

  • London Borough of Bexley (16 018 251)

    Statement Upheld Other 13-Jul-2017

    Summary: The capacity assessment which the Council carried out before Miss X moved was poorly documented, and the Council failed to provide sufficient information to Mrs X about the implications of her daughter's placement out of the area. The Council agrees to apologise for the poor communication and offer a payment of £250 to Mrs X in recognition that its shortcomings put her to some time and trouble. Miss X has now moved to her chosen accommodation and there is no evidence that she suffered any further injustice.

  • Isle of Wight Council (16 015 215)

    Statement Not upheld Other 13-Jul-2017

    Summary: There is no fault in the actions the Council has taken to limit Mrs B's contact with the Council to a manageable level. There is also no fault in the way it has provided support to her son Mr C.

  • Hertfordshire County Council (16 009 907)

    Statement Not upheld Other 11-Jul-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsmen found a care home's incident reporting, record keeping and one-to-one care arrangements resulted in an injustice for an elderly man with dementia. The care home accepted this and took appropriate action to put matters right. This included agreeing to reimburse some of the care fees. The Ombudsmen found no fault by a Council in relation to information sharing with the care home. The Ombudsmen found no fault with a Trust's mental health nursing assessment and review, but there was fault in not requesting a psychiatric review. The Ombudsmen have recommended action to address this.

  • Leicestershire County Council (17 004 606)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 07-Jul-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X's complaint about money a client, Mr Y, owes her from direct payments. The Council is not responsible for Mr Y's employment of Miss X and the Ombudsman cannot investigate the actions of individuals.

  • London Borough of Havering (17 003 523)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 05-Jul-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A's complaint about the Council's failure to communicate with her about her complaint. This is because the Council says it will pay the money it agreed with Ms A so there is no unremedied injustice for him to investigate.

  • Norfolk County Council (16 005 541)

    Statement Upheld Other 05-Jul-2017

    Summary: The Council was at fault in the way in which it responded to Mr J's requests for information about his son's welfare and healthcare needs, and to his complaints about social workers' refusal to provide this information.

  • Plymouth City Council (17 000 822)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 05-Jul-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint alleging the Council is holding inaccurate information about the complainant. This is because the Office of the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider the complaint.

  • Durham County Council (16 015 829)

    Statement Upheld Other 04-Jul-2017

    Summary: The Council assessed Mr X's social care needs each time he was discharged from hospital. It also considered the professional judgement of those involved with Mr X's medical care when planning his social care. However there is no evidence to show it explained residential care charges to his son, Mr Y, who made an uninformed decision and incurred avoidable top-up fees. The Council has agreed to reimburse the top-up fees for Mr X's four week stay.