Other


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Birmingham City Council (20 002 158)

    Statement Not upheld Other 23-Feb-2021

    Summary: We consider an Approved Mental Health Professional and a Community Psychiatric Nurse appropriately supported Mr L before and after the decision to detain him under section 2 of the Mental Health Act.

  • Northamptonshire County Council (19 018 607)

    Statement Upheld Other 22-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mr B says the provider commissioned by the Council failed to provide the care it agreed to provide, harassed and bullied him and acknowledged his concerns but made no changes. There is no evidence of harassment or that the provider made no changes following his complaint. The evidence shows Mr B received significant support but the care plan failed to set out the support he could expect which raised his expectations. An apology and changes to the information recorded in care plans is satisfactory remedy.

  • London Borough of Newham (19 020 600)

    Statement Upheld Other 18-Feb-2021

    Summary: There was fault by the Council. It failed to deal with two requests to increase the fee paid to a care provider. The Council also did not always keep the provider informed of its progress. The Council should apologise to the provider, make a decision, and backdate the payment.

  • Oxfordshire County Council (19 017 100)

    Statement Not upheld Other 17-Feb-2021

    Summary: The Ombudsmen find no fault in a Council and Trust's decision not to implement the recommendations of an investigating officer. The complaints policy sets out that investigations will be subject to senior approval and the Trust provided reasons for setting the investigator's findings aside.

  • Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (19 018 517)

    Statement Not upheld Other 17-Feb-2021

    Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's actions in relation to her role as Shared Lives carer. She said this has affected her financially. We have not found the Council to be at fault as it followed correct procedure and kept Ms X informed. We have completed our investigation.

  • Stoke-on-Trent City Council (19 010 849)

    Statement Upheld Other 16-Feb-2021

    Summary: There was fault in the way the Council decided whether some costs should be considered as a disability related expenditure. The Council did not properly consider Mr B's individual circumstances and disability and this caused unnecessary delay in the decision. The Council has agreed to apologise and provide a financial remedy.

  • Staffordshire County Council (19 020 766)

    Statement Upheld Other 15-Feb-2021

    Summary: We have upheld Mrs X's complaint about services to her as a carer and about poor communication and complaint handling. To remedy the injustice, the Council will apologise, make her a symbolic payment and take other action to improve its services described in this statement.

  • Nottingham City Council (20 002 761)

    Statement Not upheld Other 04-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mr B complained that the Council treated him with prejudice and discrimination by telling the parents of young people he had been working with that they could no longer use direct payments to continue employing him because of a spent conviction. We have found no fault in the way the Council dealt with the matter.

  • Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (19 010 659)

    Statement Upheld Other 26-Jan-2021

    Summary: We found fault with the care and support provided by the Council, Trust and CCG to Miss X, a vulnerable young woman with complex needs. We found this placed Miss X at significant risk in the community and caused her and her family avoidable distress. These organisations have agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay a financial remedy in recognition of the impact of this fault on her.

  • Kent County Council (19 021 083)

    Statement Upheld Other 20-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mrs B complained on behalf of herself and her son, Mr C, that there was fault in the way the Council reached its decision on payment banding for the Shared Lives placement and that the Council's communication has been poor. We have found no fault in the way the Council reached its decision on payment banding. The Council was at fault in failing to keep Mrs B informed, but its apology represents a satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused by this.

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.