Direct payments


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Trafford Council (19 005 333)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 18-Nov-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's decision that she has misspent a further £19,472 of her son's direct payments and says it failed to take account of the evidence she has provided. The Council has agreed to correct some misatkes in its figures, which will reduce the money it is claiming to £18,160.53. However, it was not at fault over deciding Mrs X misspent her son's direct payments.

  • Westminster City Council (19 020 747)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 17-Nov-2020

    Summary: We uphold Ms X's complaint. The Council is at fault because it: (1) stopped Ms X's direct payment when a social worker had earlier agreed she could have a managed direct payment; (2) did not complete a formal review of her care and support plan and (3) took nine months to complete a care assessment and reinstate Ms X's direct payment. The Council has already taken some appropriate action to remedy the injustice to Ms X. It will also apologise to Ms X for the fault and injustice identified.

  • Plymouth City Council (20 001 853)

    Statement Not upheld Direct payments 11-Nov-2020

    Summary: The investigation into this complaint will discontinued. The Council acknowledged it wrongly instructed Mr X to increase the hourly rate paid to his personal assistant. It apologised and provided adequate information and support to enable Mr X to deal with any contractual matter arising from the error. The Ombudsman could achieve no more. The Ombudsman has no power to instruct the Council on the hourly rates paid to personal assistants.

  • Suffolk County Council (19 016 921)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 06-Nov-2020

    Summary: Miss E complains about the way the Council reviewed her care and support plan. She says the Council sought to impose a reduction in her provision, without discussion. It also misrepresented conversations it had with professionals involved in her care. The Ombudsman upholds the complaint and has agreed an enhanced remedy.

  • Somerset County Council (19 017 349)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 05-Nov-2020

    Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to provide enough information about how Mr C could use a direct payment, and to suspend demand letters. The Council has agreed to apologise for the failures identified, waive the arrears that have accrued on Mr C's account, and make a payment of £100 to Mr E for the distress, time and effort caused by the demand letters. The Council has agreed to remind staff to record what information it gives to people receiving services. It will also review information it provides about what direct payments can be used for.

  • Devon County Council (19 014 719)

    Statement Not upheld Direct payments 08-Oct-2020

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to review/assess his needs properly, has failed to give him a personal budget which is sufficient to meet his eligible care needs and is denying him his reasonable preferences. The evidence does not support the claim that there has been fault by the Council.

  • Staffordshire County Council (19 008 804)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 06-Oct-2020

    Summary: Ms X and Mr T complained about the Council's decision to refuse a direct payment previously used to pay for Ms X's respite care. This caused distress and inconvenience to them both. The Ombudsman has found the Council to be at fault because this unfairly restricted their choice and was contrary to the relevant legislation. This fault has been accepted by the Council during the course of this investigation. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to both Mr T and Ms X and review its policy.

  • Staffordshire County Council (19 000 011)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 30-Sep-2020

    Summary: Mr X says there was fault in the way the Council managed his daughter's direct payments account. The Ombudsman finds there was no fault in the Council's decision to recoup an overpayment. However, the Council has delayed in completing an annual Care Act review for Mr X's daughter. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

  • Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (19 004 821)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 28-Sep-2020

    Summary: The Council is at fault as it poorly communicated with Miss Y, did not involve her in decisions about her care, wrongly stopped her direct payments and delayed in carrying out a care act assessment. As a result, Miss Y was denied care and support for approximately 19 months. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by making a payment of £500 to Miss Y and reimbursing the costs of support she paid for during this period.

  • London Borough of Bromley (19 007 855)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 14-Sep-2020

    Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council arranged her relative, Ms Y's social care funding. She said the personal budget was insufficient to meet her care and support needs. The Council was at fault as it set an arbitrary limit on Ms Y's personal budget and failed to show how Ms Y's needs could be met through live in care based on the budget available. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Ms Y to acknowledge the short fall in budget and to make a payment to Ms X to acknowledge the distress this caused her. It has also agreed to review Ms Y's care and support plan.

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.