Direct payments

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Lancashire County Council (18 012 467)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 02-Sep-2019

    Summary: The Council failed to follow its policy when recouping an overpayment of direct payments from Mrs X's account by failing to notify her of the amount it would recoup and when. This is fault. The Council has agreed to make service improvements and to provide Mrs X with a payment of £150 and an apology for failing to adequately address her concerns raised in her complaints.

  • North Yorkshire County Council (19 002 851)

    Statement Not upheld Direct payments 28-Aug-2019

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council has failed to deal properly with the request to repay funds from her late mother's direct payment account. There is no evidence of fault by the Council over its request.

  • Staffordshire County Council (19 005 116)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 23-Aug-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A's complaint about the time it has taken the Council to decide she should be paid a paid carer for her brother, Mr B as there are exceptional circumstances. This is because the Council has agreed Ms A and her partner can be Mr B's paid personal assistants and backdated payments to October 2018. There is no unremedied injustice for the Ombudsman to consider.

  • London Borough of Bromley (18 012 632)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 05-Aug-2019

    Summary: Mrs Y complains the Council has not paid the correct direct payments in respect of her disabled son, Mr X. The direct payments stopped due to an administrative error in August 2016. Mrs Y has not managed the direct payment account properly and the Council has not properly audited the account. In order to ascertain whether any money is owed by the Council it should now properly audit the direct payments from when they were first paid.

  • Lancashire County Council (18 012 204)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 05-Aug-2019

    Summary: Miss B complained about how the Council carried out her social care assessment, the information it gave her, its recovery of direct payments and its refusal to accept her mother as her personal assistant. There is fault in how the Council approached the assessment, how it shared information and set up the direct payments and in how it considered Miss B's request for her mother to be her personal assistant. Miss B did not miss out on any provision. That is because her mother continued to provide the support. However, it led to Miss B's mother having to go to time and trouble to pursue the complaint and caused her distress. An apology, payment to Miss B's mother and arrangements for a new panel to consider her request for her mother to be her personal assistant is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

  • London Borough of Lambeth (18 002 708)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 05-Jul-2019

    Summary: We uphold Ms A's complaint about a council stopping her direct payment because there was a failure to consider whether she could continue to manage with additional support. There was also fault in the failure to address a long-term under spend, a failure to give clear directions about how Ms A could spend a surplus of her direct payment and a failure to tell the payroll company the agreed funding. This caused Ms A avoidable distress. To remedy the injustice, the Council will apologise, pay Ms A £250 and pay her carers' invoiced wages for December 2017 plus redundancy payments. We do not uphold complaints about funding in 2016, about inadequate agency care or about complaint handling.

  • Leeds City Council (18 014 760)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 21-Jun-2019

    Summary: Ms B says the Council failed to give information about a financial client contribution for adult social care; she didn't pay and there is an outstanding debt. I find the debt is rightly due. There was a delay in the Council auditing Ms B's social care account. The Council wrongly sent an invoice to her father and disclosed her personal data to him. There have been many errors in communication. This has caused shock, frustration, stress and time trying to sort matters. The Council has taken some steps to remedy matters, it has now agreed to also deduct £250 from the outstanding invoice.

  • West Sussex County Council (18 012 549)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 10-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mrs D complains the Council should not recover direct payments which she says she used to pay for her mother's care. The Ombudsman's decision is that there is evidence of fault by the Council because it failed to clearly explain the reasons for the outstanding debt. The Council has agreed a suitable remedy.

  • Birmingham City Council (18 013 998)

    Statement Not upheld Direct payments 21-May-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to take account of his brother's exceptional circumstances in deciding that direct payments cannot be used to employ family members to provide his care. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mr X's request for direct payments to allow family members to care for Mr Y.

  • Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (18 011 052)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 20-May-2019

    Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to assess her needs properly in March 2018, resulting in a significant cut in her personal budget. When the Council identified changes in her circumstances it should have done a needs assessment. The failure to do so means it is unclear whether it is providing enough help to meet her eligible care needs. The Council should do a needs assessment and take action to make sure it does them when necessary in future.