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.

Other archive 2018-2019


Archive has 203 results

  • London Borough of Bromley (18 013 261)

    Statement Not upheld Other 29-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council denied him the opportunity to be present or informed of his father's care and support assessments. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.

  • Trafford Council (17 010 274)

    Statement Not upheld Other 29-Mar-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman discontinued his investigation of this complaint, about standards of care in an independent living facility. This is because he considers it better for the complainant to ask the Council to carry out a fresh investigation.

  • St. Anthony Of Padua Community Association (18 017 330)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 28-Mar-2019

    Summary: Ms X complains a member of the care provider's staff persuaded her to take out several personal loans. The member of staff then took the money Ms X had borrowed. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X's complaint because it is a matter for the police.

  • Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (17 014 728)

    Statement Upheld Other 28-Mar-2019

    Summary: Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council's investigation into a safeguarding referral Ms X made in 2012 was too slow and it failed to properly investigate and conclude a later referral. This amounts to fault which has caused avoidable distress and uncertainty and the Council will apologise and pay Ms X £350 to recognise this. There is no fault in relation to the other parts of Ms X's complaint.

  • Warwickshire County Council (17 014 865)

    Statement Upheld Other 27-Mar-2019

    Summary: Ms X complains about the quality of the support the Council provided to the late Mrs Y. Also about the way the Council dealt with her queries and complaints about this, charges and payments. She says she is unclear whether Mrs Y's finances were in order. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault in the support provided and dealing with Ms X's complaints but not at fault in respect of charges and payments. The Council should apologise, pay Ms X £300 and review the complaint handling.

  • Swindon Borough Council (18 011 271)

    Statement Upheld Other 27-Mar-2019

    Summary: Ms Y complained on behalf of Ms X, that the Council's response to her complaint, failed to address concerns about how it supported her. The Council also failed to respond to Ms X's request for a review of the response. The Council is at fault. It has agreed to complete a further review of the complaint.

  • Cambridgeshire County Council (17 010 333)

    Statement Upheld Other 25-Mar-2019

    Summary: Cambridge County Council and Cambridge & Peterborough Clinical Commissioning Group worked together as the Cambridgeshire Learning Disability Partnership (the LDP). The Ombudsmen consider they were at fault for the lack of support for Mr Y's needs between March and September 2016. Care providers did not meet Mr Y's needs, which led him to gain a significant amount of weight, and caused Mrs X distress. Mrs X also suffered a financial impact at having to buy her son new clothes. The Ombudsmen consider the LDP should have done more when Mr Y refused to engage in the mental capacity assessment to decide his future accommodation. This fault has caused uncertainty and distress to Mrs X and Mr Y.

  • Oxfordshire County Council (18 016 301)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 22-Mar-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr A's complaint about the actions of his wife's treatment provider. This is because it is not within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to investigate.

  • London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (18 015 866)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 20-Mar-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Mr J's complaint about an advice and support centre providing services on behalf of the Council. This is because the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider a data protection breach, and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate the other issues Mr J raises.

  • Durham County Council (18 010 457)

    Statement Upheld Other 20-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mrs F complains about a lack of service provision for her severely autistic adult daughter since she left school. The Ombudsman has found the Council failed to meet J's needs. It has agreed to apologise and make a payment to acknowledge the injustice caused.