Privacy settings

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.

Assessment and care plan


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Surrey County Council (20 004 131)

    Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 03-Aug-2021

    Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council assessed her social care needs. We find the Council was not at fault.

  • London Borough of Enfield (20 007 703)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 03-Aug-2021

    Summary: Miss X and Ms Y complained the Council delayed finding a long-term residential placement for their relative Mrs Z. The Council initially delayed allocating a social worker to complete Mrs Z's needs assessment and delayed completing her financial assessment. This was fault. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms Y to acknowledge the distress and frustration this caused. There was no fault in the way the Council then arranged a placement.

  • London Borough of Redbridge (20 007 273)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 02-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mrs C complained about two Occupational Therapy assessments she received to determine if she needed support with getting out of bed and using her bath. She said this resulted in her getting the equipment she needed. We found fault with the way in which the Council responded when Mrs C told OT1 that the bed lever was not suitable. There was also fault in referring Mrs C to the incorrect Ombudsman. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs C for any distress this caused her.

  • Warwickshire County Council (19 018 344)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 30-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council's financial assessment of his mother's assets was wrong. This made her responsible for all of her care fees. He also complained the Council wrongly refused to offer a deferred payment arrangement. We found the Council was entitled to take the position it did about the land his mother part owned. However, it failed to properly value the land. It also failed to consider exercising discretion about offering a deferred payment arrangement. The Council accepted its communications were confused at times and that it failed to offer Mrs X a suitable home within her personal budget. We recommended actions to address the injustice the fault caused.

  • Leeds City Council (19 020 736)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 28-Jul-2021

    Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments to enable her to engage with its adult social care service. We find the Council was at fault because it failed to consider alternatives to a face-to-face assessment. That has contributed to Ms X feeling unsupported by the Council. The Council has agreed to consider other ways of assessing Ms X's needs and share this with her.

  • Southend-on-Sea Borough Council (20 005 109)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 28-Jul-2021

    Summary: The Council failed to coordinate some aspects of Mr Y's transition from education into adult services. There is evidence of delay, confusion, and poor communication in the assessment process. This caused Mr Y and his father avoidable frustration and uncertainty.

  • Medway Council (20 000 331)

    Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 27-Jul-2021

    Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council provided respite care under a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard authorisation for Mr X.

  • London Borough of Hillingdon (20 007 554)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 27-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed setting up direct payments for her mother, Mrs M, following a needs assessment and failed to show the budget was sufficient to meet Mrs M's needs. The Council was at fault. It delayed arranging the direct payments and failed to review the personal budget when it reviewed Mrs M's care needs. The Council has agreed to review and backdate the personal budget, apologise to Mrs X and pay her £250 to acknowledge the time and trouble and frustration caused. It has also agreed to review its processes.

  • Suffolk County Council (20 013 231)

    Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 26-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mr D complained the Council has failed to ensure the support it provides for his sister-in-law, Mrs E, is appropriate for getting her back to living independently. He also complained the Council is shutting out him and his wife from information about Mrs E's care. We have not investigated Mr D's concerns about the support the Council is providing to Mrs E. Mrs E has not provided her consent for us to investigate the complaint and we do not consider Mr D is a suitable representative. There was no fault in the Council not sharing information about Mrs E's care with Mr D and his wife.

  • Essex County Council (19 021 002)

    Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 23-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council has supported her. We find the Council was not at fault.