Durham County Council (20 001 398)

Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 24-Nov-2020

Summary: The Council acknowledged officers made inappropriate comments about Mr X's mental health before the complaint came to the Ombudsman, but it failed to offer an appropriate remedy. It has agreed to make a payment to reflect the distress caused. There is no fault by the Council in the way it considered Mr X's request that his grandmother's telephone and internet services be considered as disability related expenditure.

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (20 001 351)

Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 24-Nov-2020

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain the Council refused to revise their adult daughter, Ms Y's, care and support plan, despite evidence that a reduction in her care and support package had negatively affected her health and wellbeing. The Council was not at fault. It appropriately reviewed Ms Y's care and support plan and considered all relevant information in its decision making.

Leicester City Council (19 019 444)

Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 24-Nov-2020

Summary: The Council's Occupational Therapy report contained errors. When Mr C and his advocate brought this to the Council's attention it did not promptly amend the report. The Council will now do so. The errors did not affect the Occupational Therapy service's findings about Mr C's needs and what equipment the Council provided to help him. Mr C is happy with the outcome.

Sheffield City Council (19 019 521)

Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 24-Nov-2020

Summary: Mr X complained about distress caused to him and his wife because of errors the Council made with a care assessment. He also complained the Council commissioned care with a provider he had complained about previously. We found there was fault. The Council apologised to Mr and Mrs X. The Council agreed to make a payment to recognise the distress caused.

Birmingham City Council (19 018 679)

Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 24-Nov-2020

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with her complaints about her mother's care. Mrs X says she felt the Council bullied her into not pursuing her complaint and refused to accept the complaint raised on her mother's behalf despite her mother lacking capacity to consent. The Ombudsman does not consider the Council was at fault for initially rejecting the complaint. While there was fault through delays this has not caused a significant personal injustice to Mrs X.

London Borough of Islington (19 018 683)

Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 23-Nov-2020

Summary: There was no significant fault, in how the Council assessed the complainant's finances for a contribution to her care fees, nor how it pursued her for arrears. However, the Council did not properly deal with correspondence about this issue. It failed to recognise there was potential disability related expenditure (DRE) to disregard, and does not appear to have responded to complaints about the standards of care provided to the complainant. It has now agreed to determine whether there is valid DRE to disregard, and offer a financial remedy for the complainant's representative's time and trouble in pursuing these matters.

Essex County Council (19 018 586)

Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 23-Nov-2020

Summary: Ms C complained about the way in which the Council carried out her son's care review and its decision to subsequently cut his support hours from four to eight. The Ombudsman did not find fault with regards to the process through which the Council reached its decision.

Shropshire Council (19 020 314)

Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 23-Nov-2020

Summary: Miss X complains that the Council failed to move her mother to a home closer to her family. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment for the uncertainty and distress caused.

Nottinghamshire County Council (19 020 842)

Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 19-Nov-2020

Summary: Mr B complains about how the Council is meeting his care needs and how it has calculated his financial contribution to the care he receives. There appears to be fault in the financial assessment and this has caused Mr B uncertainty. The Council will invite Mr B to provide further evidence and give him more information about how he can access available services.

Cheshire East Council (19 010 786)

Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 18-Nov-2020

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's delay issuing a DoLS authorisation for his father and about issues relating to financial assessment. There was no fault in the way the Council handled issues about financial assessment. But the Council was at fault for a significant delay in making a standard DoLS authorisation for Mr X's father. Mr X's father was not caused significant injustice by this. The Council is also at fault for failing to process DoLS applications for other people and there is potential injustice to them. The Ombudsman recommends the Council takes action to address the wider problem.