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:

  • 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.

  • Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (21 003 334)

    Statement Upheld Other 04-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mrs C complained about the way the Council handled Mr X's move to another supported living accommodation scheme. She said there were unreasonable delays, the process was not properly explained to her, and her son missed out on a flat he preferred. We found there were delays in the process to move Mr X to alternative accommodation. The Council has agreed to apologise for this and pay a financial remedy to Mrs C and Mr X for the distress this caused.

  • Essex County Council (21 006 660)

    Statement Upheld Other 01-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to fix a specially adapted toilet in his home after a care worker broke it several months ago. He said this situation has caused him stress and inconvenience. there was fault in the Council's failure to source a plumber to visit Mr X's property within a timely manner. Mr X did not find the plumber suitable to carry out the work and so there is no significant injustice.

  • Northumberland County Council (21 005 828)

    Statement Not upheld Other 01-Mar-2022

    Summary: A Care Home Association complained about the way the Council and the CCG dealt with its complaint made on behalf of its members. We did not found fault in the way the Council and the CCG considered the complaint from the Association.

  • Somerset County Council (21 007 521)

    Statement Upheld Other 24-Feb-2022

    Summary: Ms C complained about the Council's decision to uphold a complaint against her and subsequently remove her from the Community Micro-Enterprise Programme (CMEP). Ms C said this resulted in her being very distressed and has affected her business. We found that, although there was some fault in the implementation of the process the Council followed, this did not affect the outcome of the process. The Council has agreed to apologise for any distress.