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.

Direct payments

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Surrey County Council (20 011 374)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 03-Aug-2021

    Summary: There was fault by the Council as it did not act in line with the Ethical Framework for Adult Social Care during the first lockdown because it made no attempts to contact Mrs X and her family. The Council has agreed to make a retrospective direct payment and this remedies the injustice.

  • Essex County Council (20 012 711)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 28-Jul-2021

    Summary: There was fault by the Council. It failed to deal with Miss B's request to increase direct payments for her daughter's care for over two years, despite her repeated contact to resolve this. This caused Miss B prolonged and significant distress as she became more fearful that her daughter's care would be terminated. The Council should apologise to Miss B and her daughter, make a payment to her, and review how it can prevent the fault recurring.

  • London Borough of Hillingdon (20 001 443)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 16-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her mother, Mrs Y, that the Council stopped Mrs Y's direct payments too early. That resulted in Mrs Y receiving invoices from HMRC and PayPacket, the third-party company who processed the payments to her carer. The Ombudsman found fault causing injustice when the Council failed to maintain proper oversight of Mrs Y's direct payment.

  • Northamptonshire County Council (20 008 039)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 30-Jun-2021

    Summary: Mr D complained the Council failed to advise his parents until March 2019 that his father's transport funding had stopped in 2016 and they should not use his direct payments for this purpose or socialising. Mr D says his parents were faced with an unexpected bill and suffered unnecessary upset and distress which particularly affected his father's health. We have found fault by the Council but consider the agreed action of an apology, removal of charges and a review of procedures is enough to provide a suitable remedy.

  • Northumberland County Council (20 000 293)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 17-Jun-2021

    Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council has dealt with Ms Y's direct payment account and its decision to decline arranging a further independent audit of her account. The Council is not at fault for declining to offer a further independent audit to Ms Y. The Council is at fault as its communication with Ms Y lacked clarity which caused upset to her. The Council has apologised to Ms X and Ms Y for the confusion and upset caused which is an appropriate remedy. I have therefore completed my investigation

  • Darlington Borough Council (20 004 697)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 07-May-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's handling of her husband, Mr Y's direct payments between 2015 and 2018. This resulted in the Council issuing them an invoice for £6879 for unaccounted and unauthorised spending of the direct payments. The Council was at fault for failing to monitor, audit and provide support to Mrs X and Mr Y on their spending of the direct payments. It was also at fault for failing to keep adequate records. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and Mr Y for the distress and uncertainty this caused and reduce the outstanding debt owed.

  • Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (19 019 548)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 04-May-2021

    Summary: The Ombudsman finds fault with the way the Council made its decision not to backdate an increase in Mr C's personal budget. This meant Mr C had to fund the shortfall to ensure his care needs were met. There was also a delay handling Mr C's complaint. The Council has agreed to reimburse Mr C.

  • Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (19 005 282)

    Statement Not upheld Direct payments 23-Mar-2021

    Summary: There is no fault in the way the Council calculated Ms X's contributions towards her care. It has given her ample opportunity to provide the evidence requested for a review. There is no fault in the way the Council administered Ms X's carer's pension contributions. The evidence shows Ms X's carer did not contact the pensions body at the right time to opt out of contributions: once she did so, the situation was resolved.

  • Milton Keynes Council (20 008 428)

    Statement Not upheld Direct payments 22-Mar-2021

    Summary: The Council - which part-funds Mrs B's care with a weekly direct payment - was not at fault for requiring her husband, Mr B, to pay her assessed weekly contribution into her direct payment account. It was entitled to charge her for her care, and Mr B had agreed in advance to make the payments. Mr B's view - that, as the care he arranged cost less than Mrs B's full personal budget, she should not have to pay for it - is not supported by statutory guidance or his direct payment agreement.

  • Northumberland County Council (20 001 884)

    Statement Not upheld Direct payments 02-Mar-2021

    Summary: Mr C complained the Council has failed to increase Mr X's Personal Budget along with inflations, as a result of which he does not receive enough money anymore to meet his needs. We found the Council identified the correct steps to resolve the issue, which was a reassessment of Mr X's needs. As such, we discontinued our investigation because nothing further could be achieved for Mr X.