Direct payments

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • London Borough of Wandsworth (16 018 333)

    Statement Not upheld Direct payments 13-Dec-2017

    Summary: The Council has given valid reasons for refusing to take responsibility for Ms D's debt to HMRC for the period March 2015 to October 2015. The Council made available sufficient support and information for Ms D to fully understand her liability as an employer to pay HMRC income tax and NI contributions on wages paid to an employee.

  • London Borough of Bromley (16 017 251)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 04-Dec-2017

    Summary: The Council failed to take appropriate action when the complainant fell into arrears due to not paying her assessed contribution towards her care costs. The Council has agreed to write off some of the arrears and provide more guidance and training to its officers.

  • Kent County Council (16 014 985)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Direct payments 01-Nov-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman has decided not to investigate a complaint about Direct Payments as he is satisfied the Council acted without fault.

  • Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (16 010 160)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 23-Oct-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman cannot challenge a professional judgement where there is no procedural fault. The Council has completed a reassessment of Ms Z's needs and reached a judgement on the support she needs. There is no fault in the way that it has done this. The Council is however at fault for delaying in making payments to Ms Z which caused Mrs Y anxiety and uncertainty.

  • Essex County Council (17 000 857)

    Statement Not upheld Direct payments 19-Oct-2017

    Summary: Ms C complained the Council had made an error with paying her mother's monthly direct payments. I have not upheld Ms C's complaint.

  • London Borough of Harrow (16 018 917)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 04-Oct-2017

    Summary: The Trust's failure to clearly record its decisions regarding Mr X's entitlement to and level of personal budget in 2016 and to correctly advise him and manage his expectations about his entitlement amounts to fault causing an injustice.

  • Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (17 000 960)

    Statement Not upheld Direct payments 03-Oct-2017

    Summary: Mr A complains the Council has acted unreasonably in deciding not to backdate direct payments for his care when it was responsible for the two month delay in setting the payments up. While there was some delay in the direct payment process caused by inadequate Council staffing, there are insufficient grounds to warrant proposing a backdated payment for this period and the Ombudsman will not pursue the complaint any further.

  • Surrey County Council (16 015 153)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 28-Sep-2017

    Summary: The Council was at fault when it did not specify how Mrs X would pay for transport costs; it will authorise the spending. It was not at fault when it asked her to repay holiday costs from her direct payment account.

  • Devon County Council (17 003 831)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Direct payments 17-Aug-2017

    Summary: Mr C complained to the Trust and Council about them stopping his direct payments, being discharged from mental health services, and delays in assessing his mental health needs. The Ombudsmen will not investigate Mr C's complaints because the Trust has acknowledged faults, apologised, and taken remedial action. An investigation now by the Ombudsmen is unlikely to achieve more.

  • Warwickshire County Council (16 018 977)

    Statement Not upheld Direct payments 09-Aug-2017

    Summary: The Council was not at fault for refusing to provide a direct payment to Mr X so he could pay for a private appointee service. It must decide whether a direct payment is appropriate, and it has adequately explained why it did not consider this to be the case. The Council was entitled to make this decision.