Adult care services archive 2019-2020


Archive has 1598 results

  • Lincolnshire County Council (19 019 062)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Transition from childrens services 23-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council refusing to remove records from his daughter Y’s social care file, which he says are false. The Ombudsman cannot order the Council to remove the information, which is the outcome Mr X seeks. The Information Commissioner’s Officer is the body best placed to consider the matter.

  • Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (19 008 431)

    Statement Upheld Charging 20-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Council did not adequately explain the complainant would be required to pay an assessed contribution towards the costs of a nursing home placement. This meant her family received unexpected invoices after the placement ended. The Council has agreed to apologise for this.

  • Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (19 011 344)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 20-Mar-2020

    Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to deal properly with charges for her father’s care in 2014 and waited until 2019 to pursue them, despite complaining about them in 2014. The Council has offered to waive the charges and apologise to the family. We will discontinue the investigation as there is nothing more we can achieve.

  • Kent County Council (19 004 637)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 20-Mar-2020

    Summary: There is no evidence the Council failed to take proper action in response to Ms A’s safeguarding alerts, or act in Mr X’s best interests when he became homeless. There was a delay in applying for deputyship but that was not wholly in the Council’s control.

  • Hertfordshire County Council (19 001 890)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 19-Mar-2020

    Summary: Ms J complains about how the Council has carried out a review of her sister’s care needs and her own carer’s assessment. The Ombudsman finds fault with record keeping, delays in identifying a need for a mental capacity assessment, and with progressing the needs identified in the carer’s assessment.

  • Nottingham City Council (19 007 292)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 19-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Council correctly assessed Mrs C’s adult social care needs to facilitate her discharge from hospital, considering her wishes and those of family and professionals involved. The Council followed law and government guidance. The Council failed to respond to the complaint in line with its published procedures; it will apologise, and its complaint team will ensure to follow its procedure and update complainants as required.

  • London Borough of Hackney (19 007 469)

    Statement Not upheld Disabled facilities grants 19-Mar-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly consider her medical needs when it processed her disabled facilities grant application. She said this caused her distress and inconvenience. There was no fault in the way the Council dealt with Mrs X’s application.

  • Trafford Council (19 007 491)

    Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 19-Mar-2020

    Summary: There was no evidence of fault in the way the Council decided to include Mrs C’s property as capital in its financial assessment and in its assessment of her needs and risk to her safety in deciding the care plan.

  • Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (19 009 200)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 19-Mar-2020

    Summary: There is fault by the Council in this complaint. It cancelled Mr Y’s day service at short notice, failed to provide alternative support, and failed to respond to a crisis situation whilst Mr Y was in residential respite care. Consequently, the placement broke down. The impact on Mr Y’s wife was significant.

  • Salford City Council (19 016 808)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 19-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the way the Council tendered the contract and changed his uncle’s, Mr C’s, care provision. This is because any further investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to provide Mr B with a different outcome to that already provided by the Council.

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.

Privacy settings