Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (18 010 101)

    Statement Upheld Other 15-May-2019

    Summary: The Trust and Council were at fault in not carrying out a carer's assessment and not involving Mrs S during her husband's period of treatment. There was also fault in record-keeping and delays in responding to the complaint. These failings caused an injustice to Mrs S as she lost the opportunity for additional support and is likely to have suffered additional distress. The Trust and Council have already taken action to address these failings and improve processes. The Trust and Council have agreed to pay Mrs S financial redress and the Trust has agreed to monitor and report on improvements in its complaints handling.

  • Derby City Council (18 005 225)

    Statement Upheld Other 15-May-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council responded to a request for respite care for her mother (Mrs Y), its failure to provide proper advice about long term care and financing care and the way it handled her complaint about these issues. The Ombudsman finds the Council did not respond or advise properly and it significantly delayed dealing with Mrs X's complaint. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs X £300 to acknowledge the impact of its failures on her and pay a further week's top-up for Mrs Y's respite care. Mrs Y's house has now been sold so outstanding top-ups can be paid by Mrs Y.

  • Shropshire Council (18 010 129)

    Statement Upheld Other 08-May-2019

    Summary: Miss X complains the Council has not met a need for respite care identified in her mother's, Mrs Y's, carer's assessment. The Council is at fault. It did not make sufficient efforts to arrange respite care for Mrs Y between April and September 2017 and delayed in chasing up the agreed respite provision between July and September 2018. The lack of respite care is likely to have caused Mrs Y increased carer stress. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and Mrs Y, and pay Mrs Y £250 to acknowledge the undue stress caused.

  • Lancashire County Council (17 007 232)

    Statement Not upheld Other 08-May-2019

    Summary: Mr X has complained the Council failed to meet his assessed needs. He has also raised concerns about his social worker and the outcome of the Council's assessment of his mental capacity. I have discontinued the investigation as Mr X is unable to participate.

  • Worcestershire County Council (17 014 175)

    Statement Upheld Other 03-May-2019

    Summary: Mr P complained about his mother-in-law Mrs D's discharge from hospital, about how the Council arranged her social care, and about the way his complaint was handled. The Ombudsmen find fault with the way the Trust and Council arranged Mrs D's hospital discharge, with the Council's actions following this, and with the way the complaint was handled. The Trust and Council have agreed to take action to remedy the injustice this caused.

  • Herefordshire Council (18 015 199)

    Statement Upheld Other 03-May-2019

    Summary: The complaint is about charges for Ms B's care. There was fault in the Council's financial assessment and invoicing. This caused her avoidable distress and inconvenience. To remedy the injustice, the Council will waive some of the charge and apologise.

  • London Borough of Wandsworth (18 004 354)

    Statement Upheld Other 30-Apr-2019

    Summary: Ms B complains that the Council was wrong to seek to transfer her sensory support to the borough where she had been placed in temporary accommodation. The Ombudsman has not found fault in the Council seeking to transfer her care to the second borough. But the Council should not have closed her case before confirming that the second borough had agreed to provide care. It should have communicated its decision more clearly, and there was also delay in responding to her complaint. However, the Ombudsman does not consider that this has caused Ms B injustice that warrants a remedy beyond the apology already made, and the Council taking steps to ensure that officers are reminded of the Council's duties when transferring care.

  • Norfolk County Council (18 013 471)

    Statement Upheld Other 29-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to secure a place for his brother in the preferred care home, resulting in him remaining in hospital with no prospect of finding a suitable placement for him. Although there has been some fault by the Council, this has not caused injustice which warrants a remedy.

  • North East Lincolnshire Council (18 009 775)

    Statement Upheld Other 26-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the respite care provided to Ms Y. She says when she left, Ms Y was in pain and said she did not want to go there again. Ms X will have to find a less convenient option in future. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault in the actions of the Care Provider. The Council will pay Ms Y £200, and Mrs X £100 for the distress and risk of harm it caused. It will also take action in addition to action already taken, to prevent similar problems in future.

  • Herefordshire Council (18 010 932)

    Statement Upheld Other 24-Apr-2019

    Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed authorising a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards referral for Mrs Z from her care home. The Council was at fault. The Council's administrative errors prevented it from authorising the DoLS within the statutory timeframe. That caused Ms X avoidable frustration, uncertainty and the time and trouble of complaining to the Council. The Council had already apologised to Ms X and carried out several actions to prevent reoccurrence of the fault. I could not investigate the impact of the delay on Mrs Z because she had challenged the DoLS authorisation at the Court of Protection.