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.

Direct payments archive 2018-2019


Archive has 59 results

  • Norfolk County Council (18 003 158)

    Statement Not upheld Direct payments 28-Mar-2019

    Summary: the Council was not at fault in the way it reviewed Ms X's care and support and altered the arrangements for management of her Direct Payments.

  • Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (17 000 735)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 26-Mar-2019

    Summary: Ms X complains about the Care Act assessments carried out by the Council for her mother, Mrs Y, and her over several years. The Ombudsman finds there was fault by the Council when it reduced Mrs Y's support plan in 2016 without an evidenced reduction in her eligible needs. It was also fault to expect Ms X to carry out some of these functions instead when she had clearly expressed concerns and to give her an inadequate budget to do so. This caused a significant injustice to Ms X. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising and paying her half the amount it saved because of its decision.

  • City Of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (18 006 409)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 22-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council is unfairly recovering direct payments for his mother's care for a period several years after they were paid. The Ombudsman's considers there was unacceptable delay by the Council pursuing recovery and the debt may be statute barred. The Council has agreed to write off the debt.

  • London Borough of Lambeth (18 003 850)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 05-Mar-2019

    Summary: Ms X complains about the Council's management of direct payments for her son, Mr Y, and its failure to support him. Ms X says she has incurred costs as a result. The Ombudsman finds the Council provided inadequate information about Mr Y's direct payments and delayed completing a support plan. The Ombudsman recommends the Council provides an apology, pays Ms X £7,500 and completes Mr Y's support plan.

  • Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (18 002 420)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 01-Mar-2019

    Summary: The complainant alleged that his mother in law was required to pay her assessed financial contribution, under the direct payment scheme, for personal care even when not in receipt of care. In contrast, the Council did not require these client contributions when the Council commissioned the care directly. The Ombudsman found fault and, to remedy this, the Council agreed to reimburse the complainant the client contributions, which he had paid during periods of no care, and to review its policies. The Ombudsman is satisfied that this resolves the complaint.

  • Cheshire West & Chester Council (18 005 092)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 25-Feb-2019

    Summary: There is fault by the Council in this complaint in that it failed to undertake audits of direct payments between 2010 and 2016. However, this does not mitigate Mrs X's responsibility to provide the Council with records of expenditure. Miss X has now provided the Council with the relevant information.

  • Lancashire County Council (17 017 369)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 19-Feb-2019

    Summary: Ms X says the Council unreasonably refused to reimburse payments she made to her daughter for care services provided by her daughter. There was unreasonable delay by the Council in conducting an annual review of Ms X's care needs. The Council agreed to a financial remedy to reflect the uncertainty about the outcome caused the Council's failing.

  • North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (18 011 515)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 18-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's delay authorising a budget increase, and its handling of his complaint. He says it had a devastating effect and he could not pay his PA for the extra hours. The Ombudsman finds the Council delayed authorising ten hours of support for over two years, and did not deal with Mr X's complaint adequately. The Council has agreed to backdate the budget, reassess Mr X, and pay him £150 for his time and trouble. It will pay the PA £300 in recognition of the extended time he provided unpaid support, and review its processes to avoid similar problems in future.

  • London Borough of Bromley (18 012 953)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 08-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mrs W complains the Council has failed to deal properly with a request to return "overpaid" direct payments for her late husband. The Council has failed to address Mrs W's complaint properly, adding to her distress following the death of her husband. It needs to apologise and waive the money it has been seeking from her late husband's estate.

  • Essex County Council (18 009 456)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 08-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed in issuing direct payments to her and her mother. The Council was at fault. This caused Mrs X avoidable time and distress and led to a loss of service. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs X £150 to remedy the injustice caused, reassess Mrs X and her mother's social care needs and review how it issues direct payments to Mrs X and her mother to prevent future delays.