Direct payments archive 2017-2018


Archive has 55 results

  • Lancashire County Council (17 011 796)

    Statement Not upheld Direct payments 29-Mar-2018

    Summary: Mrs X says the Council is at fault for not refunding the balance on her father's prepaid card (which he used to pay for his care) following his death. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault by the Council and therefore he has ended his investigation of this complaint.

  • London Borough of Redbridge (16 018 667)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 26-Mar-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsmen found fault with the Council's lack of communication with Mrs X when it stopped her carer's direct payment. Mrs X suffered uncertainty and the Council should apologise to remedy this. Also, there was no fault with the CCG's decision not to pay back expenses as part of Mr Y's direct payment.

  • Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (17 010 807)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 19-Mar-2018

    Summary: Mrs X complained for her daughter Y about the way the Council assessed her direct payments. Mrs X was also unhappy with the Council's decision she must end Z's employment as Y's Personal Assistant. The Ombudsman found minor fault in the way the Council made its decisions. Its apologies are enough redress for the injustice caused to Mrs X and her family.

  • City of York Council (17 010 026)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 15-Mar-2018

    Summary: Ms B complains the Council reduced her direct payment. We found funding was not authorised in line with council procedures. A later assessment concluded Ms B did not require night time care and we found the later assessment was in line with the Care Act and national guidance, so there was no fault in the reduction. The Council's complaint response was faulty because it did not explain what had gone wrong in any detail. The Council did not co-operate with the NHS in exploring whether counselling or therapy was available for Ms B. The Council accepted our recommendation to seek Ms B's consent to refer her for counselling or therapy.

  • Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (17 010 783)

    Statement Not upheld Direct payments 14-Mar-2018

    Summary: The Council was not at fault for not backdating direct payments.

  • Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (17 016 988)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Direct payments 06-Mar-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A's complaint about the Council's refusal to increase his mother's, Mrs B's, Direct Payments. This is because it is unlikely he would find evidence of fault warranting investigation.

  • Southend-on-Sea Borough Council (17 016 487)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Direct payments 05-Mar-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A's complaint that the Council should not have suspended and removed his Direct Payments. This is because it is unlikely he would find enough evidence of fault with the Council's actions to warrant an investigation.

  • Norfolk County Council (17 007 690)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 28-Feb-2018

    Summary: Ms B received direct payments for adult social care services. Ms B complains about the Council's request that she repays some of the payments and its offer of a direct service. The Ombudsman has found evidence of fault as Ms B was given wrong advice about how she could spend the money and the Council failed to review Ms B's direct payments sufficiently and frequently. There was no fault in its offer of a direct service.

  • London Borough of Bromley (16 005 445)

    Report Upheld Direct payments 28-Feb-2018

    Summary: The Council failed to ensure Ms M's son, Mr N, could receive the level of care that he was entitled to. Mr N has lost out on provision and Ms M, who wanted to support him, has been caused distress and time and trouble. This has been made worse because although Ms M complained to the Council, it failed to deal with this complaint.

  • Nottinghamshire County Council (17 017 198)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Direct payments 27-Feb-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to provide information requested by the complainant. This is because the Information Commissioner's Officer is the appropriate body to consider such complaints.

Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.