Essex County Council (23 009 955)

Statement Upheld Direct payments 05-Jun-2024

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with the implementation of Mr X’s son’s care plan. Mr X complains there was a breakdown in communication, the Council refused to explain how his son’s contribution became nil, and about the Council’s to only fund one hour per week to cover the management of his son’s care package. This is because the alleged faults have not caused any significant injustice. In addition, there is no ongoing significant injustice.

Cheshire West & Chester Council (23 018 187)

Statement Upheld Direct payments 02-Jun-2024

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed in carrying out her son’s social care assessment. The Council has now agreed to carry it out within one month. We will not investigate because further investigation is unlikely to achieve anything more. We will not investigate Miss X’s other complaint that the Council refused to allow her to be her son’s personal assistant and to pay her for the care she provides him. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (23 005 555)

Statement Upheld Direct payments 02-Jun-2024

Summary: The Council failed to provide support to Mr B with applying to charities for a carpet which he said he needed to be able to use his wheelchair upstairs and it failed to carry out a review when he said his care needs had increased. It also wrongly decided that Mr B had been overpaid direct payments and told his carer that they would not get paid, which contributed to Mr B being left without care. The Council later decided to stop paying direct payments to Mr B but failed to follow the correct process. The Council also delayed dealing with Mr B’s application for the household support fund and for a disabled facilities grant for a downstairs toilet. The Council’s failings have caused Mr B significant distress and meant that he has had difficulty accessing a toilet and moving around his home. The Council has agreed to make some payments to Mr B and to take action to prevent similar failings in future.

Norfolk County Council (23 012 356)

Statement Upheld Direct payments 30-May-2024

Summary: There was fault in how the Council dealt with assessment and care planning for Mr K who is disabled, as well as assessment and support for his mother Ms B. There was fault in how the Council dealt with direct payments, and with recruitment of personal assistants. It has failed to take action it agreed to do as part of a complaint resolution. Throughout, the Council’s communication has been very poor. The Council has caused Ms B and her family distress, uncertainty, and frustration.

Lincolnshire County Council (23 013 555)

Statement Upheld Direct payments 16-May-2024

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his mother, Ms Y’s, care package. Mr X said the Council removed services from Ms Y’s care plan. He said the package is no longer flexible to meet her needs. Mr X said this impacted Ms Y’s health. There was fault in the way the Council delayed completing the support plan. This fault frustrated Ms Y. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and remind staff of the importance of promptly reviewing and issuing support plans.

Staffordshire County Council (23 012 001)

Statement Upheld Direct payments 15-May-2024

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council deal with a review of her daughter’s care and how it responded to her complaint about the matter. She also complained the Council failed to provide respite support and paid Direct Payments at the wrong rate for a number of years. We found there was fault by the Council. This was compounded by failings in the way it responded to Mrs X. The Council took some action to address the impact. We recommended the Council provided a written apology, made a distress payment and reimbursed her solicitors fees.

Derby City Council (23 006 497)

Statement Upheld Direct payments 13-May-2024

Summary: There was fault the Council did not fully consider Mr X’s request to reduce the information he needed to provide it while it was monitoring his direct payments. However, this fault is one which we would describe as a service failure. Any remaining injustice the Council’s actions caused Mr X by this service failure, has already been remedied by the Council’s actions, through its offer of moving him to a different payment scheme.

Luton Borough Council (23 006 888)

Statement Not upheld Direct payments 28-Apr-2024

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to support her with her direct payment account and incorrectly suspended her payments. We do not find fault in the way the Council supported Mrs X and the steps in its decision making to suspend Mrs X’s account and offer her commissioned care services. We therefore cannot question the merits of its decision.

South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 013 947)

Statement Not upheld Direct payments 18-Apr-2024

Summary: Mrs X has complained about the Council’s handling of direct payments for her son, Mr Y. I have discontinued my investigation into Mrs X’s complaint because the Council has now resolved the issue and no worthwhile outcome can be achieved by our investigation.

Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (23 005 930)

Statement Upheld Direct payments 08-Apr-2024

Summary: Mr X says the Council delayed pursuing an alleged debt, wrongly pursued the debt when he had provided evidence of how he spent the money, wrote to him at the wrong address and should not have instructed bailiffs when it knew he was vulnerable. The Council was not at fault for pursuing the debt and considered Mr X’s vulnerability when referring the case to bailiffs. The Council delayed seeking repayment of the money and wrote to Mr X at the wrong address. An apology, payment to Mr Y, agreeing a payment plan and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.