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.


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Royal Borough of Greenwich (21 012 236)

    Statement Not upheld Other 10-May-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council decided not to replace the through lift in his property with a stairlift or sit-down lift. Mr X says the through-lift in place is not fit for purpose and is causing him distress and worry. The Ombudsman does not find fault with how the Council decided not to install a stairlift or sit-down lift.

  • Peterborough City Council (21 003 925)

    Statement Upheld Other 03-May-2022

    Summary: We found fault with the Trust; it did not allocate Mr Q a new care coordinator, did not conduct a S117 review or formally discharge him, and it was not clear with Mr P during the complaints process. We also found the Council did not understand the care package it was providing to Mr Q. This caused confusion to Mr P when he tried to clarify. We recommended an apology and service improvements to address this injustice.

  • London Borough of Redbridge (21 003 724)

    Statement Not upheld Other 28-Apr-2022

    Summary: We have not investigated Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision to cease payments to him as a 'Shared Lives' carer. This is because Mr X is subject to ongoing criminal proceedings and we consider the matters complained about are inextricably linked to those proceedings.

  • St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (21 005 590)

    Statement Upheld Other 25-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mrs X and Ms Y complain about the Council's handling following their uncle's (Mr Z) death and its failure to inform them when his funeral was taking place. The Council was at fault for not following its own policy and government good practice in this case. This meant Mrs X and Ms Y missed Mr Z's funeral and he opportunity to pay their last respects. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payment to Mrs X and Ms Y for the significant distress caused. The Council will also issue written guidance to relevant staff, review its Public Health Funeral policy and then publish the policy online, in line with government good practice.

  • London Borough of Brent (20 004 266)

    Statement Upheld Other 30-Mar-2022

    Summary: We found fault with the care and treatment provided to Mr B over the period June 2018 to May 2019. These faults caused avoidable distress and frustration to Ms B. We recommended an apology, service improvements and financial recompense to address this injustice

  • Royal Borough of Greenwich (21 005 129)

    Statement Upheld Other 29-Mar-2022

    Summary: The Council refused to fund adaptations to a specialist bed. Consequently, Ms X does not have a bed that meets her needs.

  • East Sussex County Council (21 007 637)

    Statement Upheld Other 28-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mrs B complained about the care provided to her late husband, Mr B, by a care provider commissioned by the Council and the CCG to meet his aftercare needs. We found the care provider failed to properly record Mrs B's late husband's needs around eating and food consistency. As a result, Mrs B is left with uncertainty about whether the care provider met his needs in this area. We also found the care provider failed at times to communicate with Mrs B about changes in her husband's health despite her being his attorney for health and welfare. This is likely to have caused her avoidable distress. However, the care provider acted to improve when it dealt with Mrs B's complaint. The Council and the CCG have agreed to our recommendations and will apologise to Mrs B and pay her £250 each.

  • West Sussex County Council (20 012 815)

    Statement Not upheld Other 27-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr B complained his supported housing provider did not repay him any money for the time he was not living in his flat between March and June 2020. There was no fault by the Council.

  • Brighton & Hove City Council (21 000 348)

    Statement Upheld Other 25-Mar-2022

    Summary: Dr B complained ESC Council and the NHS Trust failed to properly safeguard her when it undertook an investigation into allegations of physical assault when she lived in a care home jointly funded by the CCG and BHC Council. She also complained about the home's investigation and its decision to serve notice to end the placement. We found fault in the safeguarding protection plan put in place by ESC Council and as a result Dr B experienced avoidable distress. We also found fault in the way the jointly funded home completed its investigation, and this is likely to have meant Dr B missed an opportunity to have her views and outcomes properly recorded. The Councils and the CCG agreed to our recommendations and will arrange for Dr B to receive a written apology for the injustice caused. ESC Council will also remind its officers of the importance of updating safeguarding documentation.

  • Leeds City Council (21 010 306)

    Statement Not upheld Other 23-Mar-2022

    Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's actions in passing on information from her daughter's father, and some comments it made to him. She said these resulted in an inappropriate safeguarding referral and court action which caused her to spend a lot of time in court defending herself. We find the Council was not at fault.