Archive has 416 results
-
Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 21-Feb-2020
Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council has not properly explained why it failed to increase her direct payments between 2015 (when it paid £8.50 an hour) and 2017 (when it started to pay £12 an hour). We consider it is likely Mrs B would have received £12 an hour at an earlier point if a new support plan had been finalised. But we did not find fault with the delay between March and September 2017 in finalising the support plan and so we cannot now say that Mrs B was caused an injustice by this delay.
-
Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 21-Feb-2020
Summary: There was no evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed Mr C’s capital and included a flat he bought with his daughter as a capital asset.
-
London Borough of Southwark (19 015 250)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Assessment and care plan 20-Feb-2020
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council is failing to meet her care needs and has reduced the help it provides. The Council is reassessing/reviewing the arrangements. Ms X may return to the Ombudsman once this is done.
-
Birmingham City Council (19 015 797)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Assessment and care plan 20-Feb-2020
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a delay in issuing her with a carer’s wellbeing payment. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
-
Hertfordshire County Council (18 019 983)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 20-Feb-2020
Summary: The Council completed a review of adult social care needs, which showed a change was needed to the care and support plan. The Council failed to then complete an assessment, in accordance with statutory guidance. The Council failed to follow its Continuing Healthcare policy as it did not complete a Checklist in this case or provide a copy to the Clinical Commissioning Group. This caused the complainant some time and trouble, and uncertainty about whether the outcome might have been different, for which the Council will apologise. The Council will remind staff to follow its policy, the law and statutory guidance.
-
Lancashire County Council (19 010 287)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 17-Feb-2020
Summary: The Council delayed in confirming Mr Y’s need for permanent residential care. This caused his family unnecessary distress. It also failed to communicate effectively with Mr Y’s daughter. This caused further frustration and distress.
-
Oxfordshire County Council (18 014 640)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 14-Feb-2020
Summary: Mr X complains about his care needs assessment, care plan, and the Council’s handling of his financial assessment. He also complains about the Council’s role in his disabled facilities grant application to the district council and that the Council would not complete a continuing healthcare checklist for him. The Ombudsman finds some fault with the Council’s actions regarding its role in the continuing health care checklist. However, the fault did not cause Mr X a significant injustice.
-
London Borough of Newham (19 006 787)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 14-Feb-2020
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. The Council has taken reasonable steps to address Mr R’s complaint and remedy his injustice. Also, there is not a significant injustice to warrant an investigation.
-
Swindon Borough Council (19 014 896)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Assessment and care plan 13-Feb-2020
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the actions of the Council. This is because it is unlikely he would find any evidence of fault.
-
Sheffield City Council (18 012 664)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 12-Feb-2020
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide funding for transport to meet his assessed needs. The Council was at fault as it failed to properly consider Mr X’s ability to use transport. The Council has agreed to pay Mr X £250 to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty this caused him. Mr X complained the Council allowed care providers to prohibit service users and support workers drinking alcohol, had an unfair hourly rate for support workers and failed to meet his identified prevention need for an exercise class. The Council was not at fault.