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.

Other


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Manchester City Council (21 000 592)

    Statement Upheld Other 06-Dec-2021

    Summary: the complainant complained the Council did not follow up his concerns about abuse and lack of care and support from the supported living care provider commissioned by the Council. The Council said it followed usual practice by passing the safeguarding referral to the agency providing support to Mr X. The Council recognises more could and should be done to check the quality-of-service Mr X received. I found the Council at fault, and it agreed to my remedy.

  • North Yorkshire County Council (21 000 837)

    Statement Not upheld Other 05-Dec-2021

    Summary: Miss X complains about the care provided to Mr Y on a residential respite stay. She says Mr Y was injured and the Care Provider failed to explain how this happened and did not tell family. It also failed to provide appropriate care to Mr Y. We find no fault in the care provided to Mr Y.

  • Swindon Borough Council (21 000 649)

    Statement Upheld Other 03-Dec-2021

    Summary: Mr Y's care was not in line with expected standards. The Council will apologise to him and his mother Mrs X and make them a symbolic payment of £250 each.

  • Kent County Council (21 009 999)

    Statement Upheld Other 30-Nov-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council placing limits on Mr X's contact with its services, allegedly without valid reason. This is because the Council has already provided a suitable remedy and there is nothing further we could achieve.

  • Derbyshire County Council (21 001 980)

    Statement Upheld Other 30-Nov-2021

    Summary: Miss Z has made a complaint on behalf of her aunty (Mrs X) who has care needs which are met by the Council. Miss Z says a care worker used a racist term when visiting Mrs X which caused her serious distress. She also says the care was withdrawn in response to complaints made on the subject. We found the Council was at fault in relation to the term used by the care worker. However, the evidence suggests Mrs X was not caused serious distress or harm by the fault and so there is no injustice to remedy. We have not identified any fault in relation to the allegation that care was withdrawn in response to Miss Z's complaint about the term used.

  • London Borough of Brent (20 011 113)

    Statement Not upheld Other 15-Nov-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council improperly carried out adaptations he needed to safely walk around in his garden. He said the Council's actions have caused him inconvenience. There was no fault in the Council's management of the adaptations.

  • Middlesbrough Borough Council (21 008 256)

    Statement Upheld Other 03-Nov-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about lack of care Mrs C received. This is because we could not add to the Council's response and are satisfied any injustice to Mrs C has been remedied through the additional processes and procedures the Council has put in place.

  • Devon County Council (21 000 248)

    Statement Upheld Other 27-Oct-2021

    Summary: Mr D complains the Council relayed unfounded concerns to the Office of the Public Guardian about his capacity to care for his wife and act as her lasting power of attorney. He also complains the Council failed to address poor time keeping by carers or investigate allegations he was rude to care staff. At this stage, we found the Council was at fault for failing to address the punctuality of care staff. This caused Mr D distress and uncertainty so we have recommended a number of remedies. There is no evidence to suggest any other fault by the Council. Further, we have no jurisdiction to investigate concerns raised about Mr D's lasting power of attorney. This is because these matters were considered by the court of protection.

  • London Borough of Croydon (20 013 023)

    Statement Upheld Other 27-Oct-2021

    Summary: Ms Y complained care staff left her partner, Mr X, with urine in his bottle, faeces on both a sponge in the sink and on a towel in the bedroom on 31 January 2020. Ms Y complained about the care Mr X received and about the failure to respond to her complaints. Ms Y says this impacted Mr X's mental health and her relationship with Mr X. The Ombudsman does not find fault, causing a significant personal injustice to Mr X or Ms Y, with the care provided or completion of Care Plan reviews. The Ombudsman does find fault with how the Council managed and responded to Ms Y's complaints. The Council agreed to the Ombudsman's recommendation to apologise to Ms Y and Mr X and provides each with a payment of £100 to reflect the frustration, distress, inconvenience caused.

  • Manchester City Council (21 000 833)

    Statement Not upheld Other 27-Oct-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her son, Mr Y, about the Council's actions in placing a neighbour inappropriately and dealing with their behaviour. The neighbour's behaviour caused Mr Y significant distress and caused a significant risk to his health and wellbeing. We found the Council was not at fault in the way it dealt with this.