Assessment and care plan


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Isle of Wight Council (18 017 395)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 21-Oct-2019

    Summary: X complains about maladministration, prejudice and bias, and a failure to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. Much of X's complaint is outside our jurisdiction to investigate as he started legal proceedings against the Council in December 2018 and, in any case, we cannot accept late complaints about events which happened years ago. Some of his complaints fall within the jurisdiction of other bodies. Regarding the more recent events which are within our jurisdiction to investigate, there is no evidence of injustice to X which requires a remedy. However, the Council was at fault for referring to an out of date policy when reviewing the restrictions placed on his contact with it.

  • Essex County Council (18 018 480)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 18-Oct-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained about the length of time his father, Mr Y, spent in a care home because the Council delayed putting arrangements in place to allow his father to return home. The Council delayed assessing Mr Y's ability to manage at home and delayed sourcing a care provider. It also delayed responding to Mr X's complaint. This meant Mr Y was in a care home longer than he should have been. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr Y, reduce the bill by £2800 and pay him £500 to acknowledge the distress caused to him by the prolonged stay. It has also agreed to pay Mr X £150 to acknowledge the time and trouble and distress this caused him.

  • Darlington Borough Council (19 001 435)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 17-Oct-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council assessed his mother, Mrs Y's, financial contribution towards the cost of care. The Council was at fault in the way it made and communicated its decisions.

  • West Sussex County Council (18 014 231)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 15-Oct-2019

    Summary: Mr and Mrs C complain the Council delayed in completing a reassessment of their daughter's care needs and failed to assess properly her needs which resulted in a reduction in her care package. Mr and Mrs C say their daughter's one-to-one hours have been reduced which severely limits her opportunity to go out for evenings or at the weekend and her day centre activity has been changed and her well-being has deteriorated. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council in delays in support planning, delay in a subsequent review and record keeping failings. The Ombudsman is satisfied the action already taken by the Council of a payment and review and agreed action of an apology is enough to provide a suitable remedy.

  • Manchester City Council (17 016 161)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 14-Oct-2019

    Summary: The complainant, Miss B said it was wrong when the Council and the CCG asked her to pay a third-party top-up fee towards accommodation provided to her father under the terms of the Mental Health Act 1983. She said she did not have help from the Council and the Trust to find a suitable placement and was bullied into signing a third-party top-up agreement. On the evidence available, the Ombudsmen do not find fault by the CCG. The Council and the Trust provided Miss B with good information when explaining why more expensive accommodation would require a third-party top-up payment. There were also faults in the way the Council and the Trust asked Miss B to sign a third-party top-up agreement and this is likely to have caused her avoidable distress. The Council and the Trust did not share a copy of an updated nursing needs assessment with two homes and as a result Miss B is left with doubt about the choice of accommodation process. The Council and the Trust have agreed to the Ombudsmen recommendations and will apologise, make an acknowledgement payment to Miss B. They will also remind officers of the importance of good practice when dealing with choice of accommodation.

  • Hampshire County Council (18 019 889)

    Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 13-Oct-2019

    Summary: Mr C complained that the Council failed to carry out an assessment of his care needs. However, the Council provided evidence showing that it did assess Mr C's needs, and there is no evidence of fault it carried out its assessment.

  • City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (19 000 350)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 11-Oct-2019

    Summary: Mr B complains the Council has not decided whether to make adaptions to Mr C's home. He says the Council has had three years to decide and not doing so has caused uncertainty and distress to Mr C's family. The Ombudsman finds fault and recommends the Council make a decision within a month.

  • Nottinghamshire County Council (18 016 966)

    Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 08-Oct-2019

    Summary: Ms D complains the Council decided to reduce her homecare package, even though her needs have not reduced. As such, Ms D says she no longer has the amount of support she needs. The Ombudsman did not find fault with the way the Council reached its decision.

  • West Sussex County Council (18 004 618)

    Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 08-Oct-2019

    Summary: Mr C complained the Council failed to consider some of his daughter's expenses as disability related expenses, within her financial assessment. He also complains the Council has not allocated enough funds in his daughter's personal budget to enable his daughter to pursue a work opportunity she has identified. The Ombudsman did not find fault with regards to the Council's actions.

  • Suffolk County Council (19 001 514)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 08-Oct-2019

    Summary: Ms B complains the Council did not deal with her complaint about incorrect charges for her son, Mr C's, care in accordance with its procedure. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council. The Council agrees to pay Ms B £50 in recognition of the time and trouble pursuing the complaint and Mr C £100 for the distress he experienced.