COVID-19 archive 2021-2022

Archive has 99 results

  • Brighton & Hove City Council (21 008 114)

    Statement Upheld Covid-19 30-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr B has complained about the care of his parents in a care home. We found fault in aspects of facilities and sensitivity shown around family bereavement which caused distress to Mr B and the Home has agreed to make apologies.

  • Kingston Upon Hull City Council (20 008 910)

    Statement Upheld Covid-19 23-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mrs D complained about the way the Trust cared for her father, Mr F, when he attended its emergency department and during two hospital admissions. She also complained about the way the Council and Trust dealt with her father’s discharge from hospital to a care home. We have found fault in the Council’s and Trust’s record keeping and in the way the Trust managed Mr F’s continence care. The Council and Trust accept our recommendations, so we have completed our investigation.

  • Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (21 006 662)

    Statement Upheld Covid-19 22-Mar-2022

    Summary: The Council failed to provide Mr X with the support he needed to complete assessment forms for disability related expenditure and then communicated poorly about this with Mr X’s representative. The Council has apologised for the faults and agreed to consider backdating any allowance for disability related expenditure it may grant. These are appropriate actions to remedy any injustice caused to Mr X. It has also agreed to service improvements to minimise a reoccurrence of the fault.

  • West Northamptonshire Council (21 003 087)

    Statement Upheld Covid-19 14-Mar-2022

    Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to ensure her son, Mr Z, received appropriate care, and also failed to complete his mental capacity assessment and care and support reassessment. The Council was not at fault in relation to these matters. However, it is at fault for delaying in making a decision about the most appropriate action to take to progress the case. It should take steps to prevent any further drift occurring.

  • Kingston Upon Hull City Council (21 004 756)

    Statement Upheld Covid-19 11-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr F complains about the Council's decision to reduce the hours he could attend a day centre following the centre's closure in the first COVID-19 lockdown. We found some fault which caused uncertainty to Mr F and his shared lives carers. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to them.

  • City of Wolverhampton Council (20 012 668)

    Statement Not upheld Covid-19 08-Mar-2022

    Summary: The Ombudsmen find a Nursing Home, Hospital Trust and Ambulance Trust responded appropriately when a Nursing Home resident became unwell in March 2020. Based on the evidence seen to date, professionals completed appropriate assessments and acted in line with guidance in place at that time. There was fault in the way the Nursing Home handled a relative’s request for copies of records. We have made recommendations to address this.

  • Salford City Council (21 002 727)

    Statement Upheld Covid-19 24-Feb-2022

    Summary: Ms X complained the Fountains Nursing Home failed to provide adequate care to her father in the hours prior to his death and that the Council’s safeguarding investigation was flawed. The Council has already identified fault, mainly around communication with the family and the Nursing Home’s recording of events. It has apologised to Ms X and made service improvements. These are suitable actions to remedy Ms X’s injustice and prevent a reoccurrence.

  • London Borough of Waltham Forest (21 005 164)

    Statement Not upheld Covid-19 22-Feb-2022

    Summary: Mr X complains about the care his late mother, Mrs Y, received in the Council’s care home, Mapleton Road, in December 2020. There is no evidence Mapleton Road failed to meet Mrs Y’s care needs.

  • Sheffield City Council (20 013 706)

    Statement Upheld Covid-19 17-Feb-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to ensure it had effective monitoring processes in place in relation to his daughter, Miss D’s, supported living placement and also delayed in responding to his complaint. The Council has already accepted there was a need to improve monitoring and has taken appropriate steps to address this. The Council took too long to respond to Mr X’s complaint. It has already apologised for this which is suitable to remedy the frustration this caused Mr X. It has also agreed to provide evidence that the outstanding work to the communal room has been completed and it has raised the issue of unacceptable delays with the Landlord.

  • Boutique Care Shepperton Ltd (21 004 752)

    Statement Upheld Covid-19 16-Feb-2022

    Summary: Ms X complains about the care her mother, Mrs Y, received at The Burlington, a care home run by Boutique Care Shepperton Ltd. She says this resulted in having to move her mother and paying for two care homes. The Burlington’s actions contributed to the breakdown in relations between it and Mrs Y’s family. It also failed to deal properly with a proposed move to another part of the home. This caused unnecessary distress and resulted in Mrs Y paying for two care home placements. The Care Provider has offered to refund the duplicated care home costs. It also needs to apologise to Ms X and pay her financial redress.

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