Decision search
Your search has 49843 results
-
Earls Lodge Care Home (24 009 318a)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Mental health services 27-Jan-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained that the care provider, on behalf of the Council, failed to respond to her concerns about safeguarding her relative, Mrs Y, did not report safeguarding incidents, and did not keep adequate records. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there are not enough indications of fault for us to investigate, and we are unlikely to add to the response she has already received from the care provider.
-
Elmbridge Borough Council (24 005 685)
Statement Upheld Enforcement 27-Jan-2025
Summary: Mr B says the Council failed to properly investigate a breach of planning control and relied on inaccurate information when responding to his complaint. There is no fault in how the Council considered the breach of planning control. The Council failed to explain the dates used in the complaint response properly. An apology is satisfactory remedy.
-
Derbyshire County Council (24 006 053)
Statement Upheld Highway repair and maintenance 27-Jan-2025
Summary: Ms X said the drains failed during heavy rainfall which caused flooding in her basement and the manhole cover on her driveway to come off. Ms X complained the Council has not done the repair work which means she cannot use her drive, and she is worried her basement will flood again. She would like the Council to fix the problem and repair the manhole cover. The Council is at fault for delay in carrying out repair works and agreed to a financial remedy for the distress caused.
-
Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (24 006 607)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Antisocial behaviour 27-Jan-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council failed to act on his reports noise nuisance. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
-
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (24 005 030)
Statement Not upheld Charging 27-Jan-2025
Summary: Ms F complained about how the Council dealt with her requests for adult social care support since summer 2023 and its charges for a respite placement. We did not find the Council at fault. It could only act and provide the support Ms F agreed to, and it was entitled to charge her for care costs she had received following the outcome of its financial assessment. Other parts of Ms F’s complaint were not investigated as these were late or related to a private family dispute.
-
North Lincolnshire Council (24 005 557)
Statement Not upheld Other 27-Jan-2025
Summary: Mrs X says the Council failed to properly consider her safeguarding concerns, failed to update her, failed to intervene to arrange a visit protocol, misrepresented what her mother had said and failed to carry out mental capacity assessments properly. There is no fault by the Council.
-
Statement Not upheld Charging 27-Jan-2025
Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council charged for Mrs Y’s care and for delays in completing financial assessments. Ms X said this left Mrs Y with a large, unexpected care bill. We do not find fault with the way the Council assessed Mrs Y’s finances or how it reached its decision to charge for the care she received.
-
West Sussex County Council (23 011 807)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 27-Jan-2025
Summary: Mrs J complained the Council failed to hold a discharge planning meeting and wrongly charged her for care after she was discharged from care under the Mental Health Act 1983. It was fault not to hold the meeting; the Council has already remedied the injustice caused by this. There was no fault in the charging for Mrs J’s care.
-
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Assessment and care plan 27-Jan-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s commissioned care provider sending male carers to do personal care visits to his mother Mrs Y, delaying its assessment of a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) for Mrs Y and how it did that assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council allocating Mrs Y’s visits to male carers nor in the DFG decision-making process to warrant us investigating. Investigation of the reasons for the use of male carers would not result in a different finding or outcome. The time taken by the DFG process did not cause sufficient injustice to justify an investigation.
-
Leeds City Council (24 012 139)
Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 27-Jan-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the quality of care provided to her father by his care provider. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.