Other

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Shropshire Council (17 017 939)

    Statement Not upheld Other 11-Jan-2019

    Summary: A man complained that his mother was discharged from hospital unsafely by an NHS Trust and that the Council did not arrange a care package for her. He said as a result, his mother became very distressed and they had to arrange an urgent respite placement for her. The Ombudsmen find that there were failures with the NHS Trust's discharge planning but the Council did arrange a care package. The Trust has agreed to apologise and explain how it will avoid similar issues in future.

  • Nottingham City Council (18 004 030)

    Statement Upheld Other 21-Dec-2018

    Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of Miss Y about the Council's failure to properly plan for a change in Miss Y's support worker and about the way the Council responded to his complaint about this. There was fault in the way the care provider, acting on behalf of the Council, advised Miss Y of the change. The Council has already identified learning points which it has fed back to the care provider. There were also faults in the way it responded to Mr Y's complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and Miss Y for the distress caused by its faults.

  • Derby City Council (17 015 873)

    Statement Upheld Other 20-Dec-2018

    Summary: Miss T, complained on behalf of the late Mr G, about the failure of the Council and the CCG to arrange and provide suitable support to manage his property and financial affairs. Miss T said as a result Mr G accrued debt, could not access his bank account and experienced distress. On the evidence available, the Ombudsmen found a dispute between the Council and the CCG led to a delay in
    Mr G receiving support to act for him and manage his property and financial affairs. It is likely, on balance, that Mr G could not understand the impact the faults had on him so did not experience injustice. The Council and the CCG have agreed to provide an update to the Ombudsmen and Miss T to show what improvements they have made to joint working arrangements to help prevent similar mistakes.

  • London Borough of Islington (18 004 176)

    Statement Upheld Other 19-Dec-2018

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council stopped paying him direct payments to pay for a second room for a carer, and then delayed reconsidering this decision when he asked it to. The Council was at fault as it did not properly consider its decision to stop paying for the second room and it did not identify how else it would discharge its duty to meet Mr X's eligible night time needs. It then took too long to reconsider its decision. Mr X paid rent himself for a second room to enable a carer to stay overnight. The Council has agreed to refund
    Mr X £2,280 for the costs of the second room for five and a half months, and to apologise.

  • Manchester City Council (18 000 239)

    Statement Upheld Other 11-Dec-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman has not found fault in the way the social worker carried out a visit to Mr C or in the Council's decision to stop direct payments while it carried out a safeguarding investigation. There was a delay in the Council's decision to carry out a mental capacity assessment of Mr C, but the assessment of his capacity to make decisions about his care has been done.

  • Cornwall Council (17 015 567)

    Statement Not upheld Other 06-Dec-2018

    Summary: There is no fault by the Council in this complaint. Although the company Mrs X purchased two chairs from is a Council supported business, the Council is not responsible for the dispute between Mrs X and the business about the suitability of one of the chairs purchased. The business operates independently of the Council and Mrs X purchased the chairs privately. She was provided with a copy of the terms and conditions of sale. This makes clear the contractual agreement is between Mrs X and the business.

  • Suffolk County Council (18 001 963)

    Statement Upheld Other 06-Dec-2018

    Summary: The Council invoiced Mr B for three computer sessions at a day centre which the day centre did not provide. The Council has agreed to remove its charges for these sessions, apologise and make a payment of £150 to Mr and Mrs B. The Council has also agreed to take action to prevent similar failings in future.

  • Westcountry Case Management Ltd (17 008 174)

    Statement Not upheld Other 05-Dec-2018

    Summary: Mr B complains that Westcountry Case Management Ltd failed to deliver adequate care and support to his son, Mr C, and failed to help him achieve independent living skills so he could move into his own home. He also says it excluded him from Mr C's care planning. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation because the local authority has decided Mr C does not have capacity to complain about his care provider and that, if he wishes to complain, he should be supported to do this by an advocate or his person- centred plan worker. In these circumstances, Mr B is not an appropriate representative to bring the complaint on Mr C's behalf.

  • South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (18 003 815)

    Statement Not upheld Other 05-Dec-2018

    Summary: There is no fault by the Council when restricting Miss B's contact or assessing her care needs.

  • East Sussex County Council (16 015 553)

    Statement Not upheld Other 30-Nov-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsmen found no fault by a Council, an NHS Trust and a Mental Health Trust about the care they arranged or provided to someone with Parkinson's Disease following several hospital admissions. The Ombudsmen found fault by a GP Practice in its assessment of a patient and in its recording about medication reviews. However, the faults did not cause the patient harm and there was no fault with the clinical care. The Ombudsmen made recommendations to the Practice to apologise to the patient's family for the distress caused by the faults and to review this case and make service improvements.

;