Assessment and care plan

Northamptonshire County Council (18 013 647)

Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 13-May-2019

Summary: Mr and Mrs B complained about the lack of notice and explanation about a change to the Council's charging policy which significantly increased Mrs B's financial contribution. We did not find the Council at fault for Mr and Mrs B's non-receipt of two letters. But the Council did not provide sufficient information once the changes were agreed, to fully inform vulnerable service users about the changes. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr and Mrs B and change its procedure for the future.

Kingston upon Hull City Council (18 008 929)

Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 10-May-2019

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to appoint an appropriate advocate for her brother (Mr Y). The Council was at fault for delaying the assessment of Mr Y's capacity and appointing an advocate. This did not cause Mr Y a significant injustice as there were no gaps in his care and support provision. The Council has since improved its processes to ensure a better service is provided in the future.

Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (18 013 480)

Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 09-May-2019

Summary: Miss X complained the Council misled her into moving to her current residential placement. She said the placement does not meet her needs and the Council has not done enough to return her to her home area. The Council accepted it should have better prepared Miss X for the move to Home B and has apologised. There is no other fault in the Council's actions.

Liverpool City Council (17 013 828)

Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 09-May-2019

Summary: The Ombudsmen consider the Aintree University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust did not tell the family Mr B fell on a high visibility ward in March 2016. Also, it did not fully consider Mr B's views in a best interest decision despite his fluctuating capacity. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council did not tell Mr B's family he would be an ordinary resident of Liverpool if moved out of the region. Liverpool City Council's lack of assessment of Mr B's needs caused confusion and distress to Mr B's family. We have made recommendations to address the family's injustice.

Kent County Council (18 007 784)

Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 07-May-2019

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council delayed in re-assessing her father's care and support needs, and in deciding how those needs should be met. She also complains the Council has failed to correctly calculate the cost of meeting her father's care needs and awarded direct payments which do not meet the full cost of his care. The delay in reassessing Mr Y's care needs, and in arranging a package of care so that he could return home amounts to fault. As does the failure to calculate the cost of Mr Y's care at home when determining the level of his direct payments. These faults have caused an injustice as Mr Y had to remain in hospital for longer than necessary and has had to pay the shortfall in the cost of his care.

Durham County Council (18 012 163)

Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 01-May-2019

Summary: The Ombudsman upholds the complaint from Mr X about communication from the Council and about the care delivered to his late mother, Mrs Y. There were some gaps in social workers' contact with Mr X and the care home failed to adhere to its own falls policy. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £500 to recognise the distress caused to him by these faults. The Council will also remind its staff about the importance of regular communication; carry out an audit to ensure the care home is applying its falls policy correctly; and consider how care providers can report concerns more effectively.

Hertfordshire County Council (18 013 992)

Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 01-May-2019

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to carry out a financial assessment prior to his mother entering respite care. As a result Mrs Y has wrongly paid the full cost of her care. The Council's failure to record any discussion with Mrs Y about the cost of funding her respite care, or to carry out a financial assessment when it arranged Mrs Y's respite care amounts to fault. There was also fault in the way the Council assessed Mrs Y's care needs when she returned home. These faults have caused Mrs Y an injustice in having to fund the full cost of her care.

Northamptonshire County Council (18 016 871)

Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 01-May-2019

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to deal properly with his mother-in-law's financial assessment by not backdating its funding for her care home fees. There is no requirement for the council to backdate its funding for care before the date someone first asks it for help. We will discontinue the investigation as we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants and get the Council to backdate its funding.

Blackburn with Darwen Council (18 012 974)

Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 30-Apr-2019

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's assessment and care planning. There was fault by the Council in not sharing its assessment promptly with him, and with some aspects of its investigation into his complaint. These faults caused Mr X avoidable frustration and distress. The Council has agreed to apologise and to review its practice to avoid reoccurrence of these faults. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council has come to its decisions regarding Mr X's care needs.

Salford City Council (18 012 415)

Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 30-Apr-2019

Summary: Miss Y was suspended from a day centre in 2017 without any formal process. Following this the Council failed to provide adequate provision. Miss Y missed out on services she is entitled to. This caused an injustice to her and her carer. We have made recommendations to address this.