Direct payments

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • London Borough of Lambeth (18 003 850)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 05-Mar-2019

    Summary: Ms X complains about the Council's management of direct payments for her son, Mr Y, and its failure to support him. Ms X says she has incurred costs as a result. The Ombudsman finds the Council provided inadequate information about Mr Y's direct payments and delayed completing a support plan. The Ombudsman recommends the Council provides an apology, pays Ms X £7,500 and completes Mr Y's support plan.

  • Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (18 002 420)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 01-Mar-2019

    Summary: The complainant alleged that his mother in law was required to pay her assessed financial contribution, under the direct payment scheme, for personal care even when not in receipt of care. In contrast, the Council did not require these client contributions when the Council commissioned the care directly. The Ombudsman found fault and, to remedy this, the Council agreed to reimburse the complainant the client contributions, which he had paid during periods of no care, and to review its policies. The Ombudsman is satisfied that this resolves the complaint.

  • Cheshire West & Chester Council (18 005 092)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 25-Feb-2019

    Summary: There is fault by the Council in this complaint in that it failed to undertake audits of direct payments between 2010 and 2016. However, this does not mitigate Mrs X's responsibility to provide the Council with records of expenditure. Miss X has now provided the Council with the relevant information.

  • Lancashire County Council (17 017 369)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 19-Feb-2019

    Summary: Ms X says the Council unreasonably refused to reimburse payments she made to her daughter for care services provided by her daughter. There was unreasonable delay by the Council in conducting an annual review of Ms X's care needs. The Council agreed to a financial remedy to reflect the uncertainty about the outcome caused the Council's failing.

  • North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (18 011 515)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 18-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's delay authorising a budget increase, and its handling of his complaint. He says it had a devastating effect and he could not pay his PA for the extra hours. The Ombudsman finds the Council delayed authorising ten hours of support for over two years, and did not deal with Mr X's complaint adequately. The Council has agreed to backdate the budget, reassess Mr X, and pay him £150 for his time and trouble. It will pay the PA £300 in recognition of the extended time he provided unpaid support, and review its processes to avoid similar problems in future.

  • London Borough of Bromley (18 012 953)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 08-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mrs W complains the Council has failed to deal properly with a request to return "overpaid" direct payments for her late husband. The Council has failed to address Mrs W's complaint properly, adding to her distress following the death of her husband. It needs to apologise and waive the money it has been seeking from her late husband's estate.

  • Essex County Council (18 009 456)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 08-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed in issuing direct payments to her and her mother. The Council was at fault. This caused Mrs X avoidable time and distress and led to a loss of service. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs X £150 to remedy the injustice caused, reassess Mrs X and her mother's social care needs and review how it issues direct payments to Mrs X and her mother to prevent future delays.

  • West Sussex County Council (17 020 420)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 04-Feb-2019

    Summary: Ms C complained about the care support her brother received after their mother had a stroke in April 2016 and was no longer able to support him. The Council has accepted there was a delay in providing a six hour increase in Mr B's support, and some shortcomings with regards to his homecare. The Council has agreed to provide an apology and a financial remedy to Mr B and Ms C.

  • Herefordshire Council (18 009 895)

    Statement Not upheld Direct payments 30-Jan-2019

    Summary: it was not fault for the Council to reclaim money Mr & Mrs X spent from a Direct Payment account to pay for goods and services that were not included in their Carers' Support Plans.

  • Portsmouth City Council (18 002 110)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 24-Jan-2019

    Summary: Mrs B says the Council does not provide adequate support to her disabled husband so he can access the community and pursue activities such as fishing. She says the Council is not flexible enough in its approval of direct payments. The Ombudsman has found fault in the way the Council refused to pay for the equipment to enable Mr B to go fishing and in the lack of clarity in documents. The Ombudsman recommends that the Council pays for the fishing equipment and provides more detail in the documents.