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.

Adult care services archive 2018-2019

Archive has 1644 results

  • Birmingham City Council (17 018 314)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 29-Mar-2019

    Summary: Ms P complained that a council and NHS Trust took too long to arrange her mother Mrs D's discharge from hospital and did not do so properly. Then, they were forced to accept a care home which was known to provide poor care. Mrs D was neglected and abused there. The council did not respond properly and closed its safeguarding investigation without good cause. The Ombudsmen find that the Council and Trust delayed the discharge, and did not properly consider possible options. They caused the family to believe they had to accept a placement they did not want, or Mrs D would be forced to leave hospital the next week. The council gave them incorrect information about care costs. The council did not properly ensure Mrs D was safe after an alleged assault. The council closed the safeguarding enquiry without investigating properly and ensuring others were safeguarded. The Ombudsmen recommend actions to address this.

  • London Borough of Camden (17 007 842)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 29-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr B complains about the Council's assessment of his needs, lack of advocate and lack of care provision. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the Council has offered assessments and advocacy in the past but this depends on Mr B's engagement with the offered services. However, there was fault in the records and lack of care plan and more recently, in the lack of advocacy. The Council has agreed to offer Mr B an advocate for a re-assessment of his needs and then provide the documents it should have provided under the Care Act.

  • 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.

  • Leeds City Council (17 020 442)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 29-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the care provided to Mr Y and delays with a safeguarding investigation which upheld allegations of neglect and organisational abuse by Amore Elderly Care Limited. She also complains about the lack of suitable care homes and confusion over what care Mr Y needed. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault in the care provided and the delay, but not in the other matters. The Council caused Mrs X and her family much distress, time and trouble and has agreed to pay Mrs X and her sister £750 each, and waive or refund Mr Y's care costs from 1 February 2015.

  • Slough Borough Council (18 000 891)

    Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 29-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mrs X has complained that the Council failed to ensure her mother's needs were being met. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.

  • Jewel Home Support Ltd (18 003 469)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 29-Mar-2019

    Summary: Ms X complained the care provider provided her with inadequate care, failed to make reasonable adjustments, unfairly terminated her care and did not investigate her complaint properly.
    Ms X says this caused her distress and created a risk to her health. The care provider was at fault when it failed to provide the service agreed with Ms X or give adequate reasons why it refused her request for reasonable adjustments. The care provider also failed to properly investigate Ms X's complaint. The care provider has made an appropriate financial payment to Ms X to remedy the injustice it caused her and reviewed some of its procedures. It should make further procedural changes. There was no fault in the way the care provider terminated Ms X's contract.

  • East Riding of Yorkshire Council (18 005 929)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 29-Mar-2019

    Summary: Ms C complained about the respite care the Council had arranged for her (late) father at a care home. She also complained about the way in which the Council responded when she raised concerns about his care. The Ombudsman decided to uphold the complaint. As such, the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms C for the distress she suffered. It will also pay her a financial remedy for the care she provided to her father and it will share the lessons learned with relevant staff.

  • Bracknell Forest Council (18 008 782)

    Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 29-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains about the occupational therapy service provided by the Council. He says this caused delays in meeting Mrs Y's needs in this area. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the Council's actions.

  • London Borough of Lewisham (18 011 852)

    Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 29-Mar-2019

    Summary: Ms X complained the Council incorrectly calculated her Minimum Income Guarantee as she believes this figure should include a disability premium. She also says the Council requested excessive amounts of evidence as proof of her Disability Related Expenditure. The Council is not at fault.

  • Salford City Council (18 012 311)

    Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 29-Mar-2019

    Summary: Ms X complained about her dealings with the Council over its assessment of her social care needs as well as the requirements for the installation of a stair lift in her home. The Ombudsman cannot investigate her complaint because it must first be put through the Council's complaints procedure.