Direct payments archive 2020-2021


Archive has 49 results

  • London Borough of Redbridge (20 004 942)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Direct payments 02-Nov-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council decision to recover money in his sister’s Ms C’s, direct payment account. This is because there is no unremedied injustice warranting an Ombudsman investigation.

  • Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (20 002 279)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Direct payments 30-Oct-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council is requiring him to provide proof of how direct payments for social care are spent and questioned his financial probity. The Council has not caused Mr X an injustice. It has not concluded its audit.

  • Devon County Council (19 014 719)

    Statement Not upheld Direct payments 08-Oct-2020

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to review/assess his needs properly, has failed to give him a personal budget which is sufficient to meet his eligible care needs and is denying him his reasonable preferences. The evidence does not support the claim that there has been fault by the Council.

  • Staffordshire County Council (19 008 804)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 06-Oct-2020

    Summary: Ms X and Mr T complained about the Council’s decision to refuse a direct payment previously used to pay for Ms X’s respite care. This caused distress and inconvenience to them both. The Ombudsman has found the Council to be at fault because this unfairly restricted their choice and was contrary to the relevant legislation. This fault has been accepted by the Council during the course of this investigation. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to both Mr T and Ms X and review its policy.

  • Staffordshire County Council (19 000 011)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 30-Sep-2020

    Summary: Mr X says there was fault in the way the Council managed his daughter’s direct payments account. The Ombudsman finds there was no fault in the Council’s decision to recoup an overpayment. However, the Council has delayed in completing an annual Care Act review for Mr X’s daughter. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

  • Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (19 004 821)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 28-Sep-2020

    Summary: The Council is at fault as it poorly communicated with Miss Y, did not involve her in decisions about her care, wrongly stopped her direct payments and delayed in carrying out a care act assessment. As a result, Miss Y was denied care and support for approximately 19 months. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by making a payment of £500 to Miss Y and reimbursing the costs of support she paid for during this period.

  • Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (20 002 616)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Direct payments 24-Sep-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to pay him direct payments to provide care to his partner’s, Ms B’s, mother, Mrs C. This is because it is unlikely he would find evidence of fault or make a different finding to that already provided to Mr B by the Council.

  • London Borough of Bromley (19 007 855)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 14-Sep-2020

    Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council arranged her relative, Ms Y’s social care funding. She said the personal budget was insufficient to meet her care and support needs. The Council was at fault as it set an arbitrary limit on Ms Y’s personal budget and failed to show how Ms Y’s needs could be met through live in care based on the budget available. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Ms Y to acknowledge the short fall in budget and to make a payment to Ms X to acknowledge the distress this caused her. It has also agreed to review Ms Y’s care and support plan.

  • Northamptonshire County Council (19 015 304)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 01-Sep-2020

    Summary: Ms B complained the Council delayed recovering an overpaid direct payment, failed to properly explain the amount outstanding and wrongly said she had agreed a repayment plan. The Council was not at fault for the way it told Ms B about the amount outstanding or for the payment plan amount. However, the Council delayed following up with Ms B when payment was not received. The delay caused Ms B distress. An apology is satisfactory remedy, taking into account the length of time Ms B has had without having to pay the amount owed back to the Council.

  • Dorset Council (19 014 057)

    Statement Not upheld Direct payments 27-Aug-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council unreasonably increased his daughter, Ms Y’s personal contribution towards her care costs.
    He also complained the Council did not respond appropriately to his complaint. He said this caused him and Ms Y distress and financial loss. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

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