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:

  • Nottinghamshire County Council (20 013 237)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 14-Oct-2021

    Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council assessed her mother Ms Y's care and support needs and about how it handled the financial assessment and Ms Y's financial contribution. There was no fault in the way the Council assessed Ms Y's care needs, in the support it identified she required or in the way it assessed her financial contribution. The Council was at fault for delays in notifying Ms Y of her contribution, for delays in responding to Ms X and for the way it recouped an overpayment which left Ms Y without sufficient funds to pay for her care. The Council has agreed to waive four weeks of Ms Y's contribution and make a payment to Ms X to acknowledge the distress and frustration caused. It has also agreed to review its processes to prevent a recurrence of the faults identified.

  • Cornwall Council (20 013 157)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 13-Oct-2021

    Summary: There was no fault in the fact the Council did not review the complainant's care plan every six months. There was fault by the Council because it did not register letters the complainant sent asking for increased support, but this did not cause injustice because she had a care plan review shortly afterwards. We have discontinued our investigation of the complainant's remaining points because they are out of time, in some cases by a considerable margin.

  • London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (20 013 778)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 28-Sep-2021

    Summary: The Council was at fault for giving the complainant conflicting information about his care and support hours, but this did not mean it was underpaying his direct payments. The Council's apology is adequate to remedy the injustice caused by this confusion. There is no fault by the Council in seeking to recover surplus funds from the complainant's direct payment account, and it has now put in place measures to ensure he can manage the account properly. We have therefore completed our investigation.

  • Norfolk County Council (20 013 437)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 26-Sep-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council's adult social care department provided a poor level of service, causing distress to her and her brother. We find fault by the Council causing injustice. We recommend it provide an apology and explanation to Mrs X, pay her £300 for distress and take action to prevent recurrence of the delay in funding direct payments.

  • London Borough of Sutton (20 005 203)

    Statement Not upheld Direct payments 15-Sep-2021

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about their dealings with the Council over a direct payment account for their disabled son. The complaint was closed because the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve anything worthwhile for Mr and Mrs X through further investigation of the matter.

  • Cumbria County Council (20 013 483)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 31-Aug-2021

    Summary: Ms X complained the Council reclaimed unspent direct payments it provided to her as her mother's carer. The Council was not at fault for reclaiming the unspent funds. It was at fault for not advising Ms X it intended to do this and for not giving her four weeks' notice in line with its terms and conditions. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Ms X to acknowledge the frustration caused. It has also agreed to take action to prevent a recurrence of the fault.

  • Isle of Wight Council (21 000 195)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 27-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's decision not to reimburse her deceased father's estate for the care she provided him between November 2019 and March 2020. We find the Council was at fault in how it considered whether Mr Y's direct payments could be used to pay for the care Mrs X provided. That has meant he paid for care he was entitled to receive financial support for. The Council has agreed to reimburse Mr Y's estate with the direct payments for the care Mrs X provided. It will also review its policy on direct payments.

  • Birmingham City Council (20 007 920)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 25-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the way the Council reassessed their adult son Mr S's care needs and about its failure to cover the cost of an increase in the care provider's hourly rate. The Council was at fault. It delayed reassessing Mr S and has not shown how the revised budget is sufficient to meet Mr S's needs. It has not backdated the direct payments sufficiently leaving Mr S in debt to the care provider. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr and Mrs X to acknowledge the frustration the faults caused them. It has agreed to pay the backdated amount owed to the care provider and to produce evidence to show how the budget is sufficient to meet Mr S's needs.

  • Herefordshire Council (20 011 186)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 23-Aug-2021

    Summary: There is evidence of fault in this complaint. The Council reduced Mr Y's direct payment because it wrongly believed direct payments cannot be spent on social/community activities, which in this case were identified as an eligible need.

  • 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.