Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Cornwall Council (19 000 357)

    Statement Not upheld Other 09-Sep-2019

    Summary: Mr C complains about the way the Council dealt with a safeguarding concern raised about the care home for which he is the managing director. I have completed my investigation on the basis that there was no fault in the way the Council dealt with the matter.

  • Buckinghamshire County Council (18 017 524)

    Statement Upheld Other 02-Sep-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's management of her daughter's (Miss D's) support. There is fault in way the Council handled D's financial support. This caused distress for Miss D and Mrs X. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice.

  • Somerset County Council (18 010 660)

    Statement Not upheld Other 29-Aug-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A's complaint about the behaviour and alleged neglect of a Social Worker who visited her in hospital. This is because it is unlikely he would find enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Social Worker to warrant an investigation.

  • Surrey County Council (18 013 134)

    Statement Not upheld Other 27-Aug-2019

    Summary: Mrs C complains the Council is failing in its legal duties to support her adult daughter who is deaf-blind which means she remained in an unsuitable placement for longer than necessary. The Ombudsman has ended his investigation as we do not have the consent of Mrs C's daughter.

  • Birmingham City Council (18 011 234)

    Statement Upheld Other 22-Aug-2019

    Summary: Mr C complains about the way in which the Council assessed his mother's care needs when she lived in the community, and later when she was in hospital and needed a care home. The Ombudsman found fault with the way the Council recorded the first assessment and with the failure to involve Mr C in the second assessment. There was also an unreasonable delay in placing Mr C's mother in a suitable care home. The Council has agreed to the Ombudsman's recommendations, which include a financial remedy for the avoidable distress Mr C and his mother experienced.

  • London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (18 016 850)

    Statement Upheld Other 21-Aug-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's handling of his friend's belongings after he went into a care home. He complains the Council did not have authority to dispose of the belongings. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council's actions. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him a financial remedy.

  • City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (18 011 599)

    Statement Not upheld Other 12-Aug-2019

    Summary: There was no fault in the decision to place an embargo on Company X.

  • London Borough of Redbridge (18 014 086)

    Statement Upheld Other 26-Jul-2019

    Summary: The Council failed to always respond to requests from a care provider for extra support for one of the people using its service. The Council failed to always respond to requests for reviews of that person's support plan. The care provider increased support, even though the Council had not assessed extra support was needed. Although the Council did not always reply to correspondence, when it did complete reviews it did not find extra support was required, so will not pay for the additional support the care provider put in place. I find communication was poor, so raised the care providers expectations. The Council will apologise, pay £250 and remind staff to respond in a timely and thorough way.

  • Leeds City Council (18 015 924)

    Statement Upheld Other 24-Jul-2019

    Summary: The Council apologised for forgetting to tell Mr X about arrangements to attend an exhibition of visual aids but will make a small payment in recognition that this may have lost him the opportunity to find useful products. It has now provided a low-level light with magnifier for him. There is no evidence the Council dealt differently with Mr X because of his complaint although he complains staff would not enter his house because of the building works.

  • Kent County Council (18 019 110)

    Statement Not upheld Other 15-Jul-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's decision not to share information about his partner's whereabouts with him. The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation. This is because Mr X is not a suitable representative to bring the complaint.