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:

  • Warrington Clinical Commissioning Group (19 018 188)

    Statement Upheld Other 18-May-2021

    Summary: Mr B complained about what happened when his father, Mr C, was discharged from hospital to a nursing home. We found no fault in the way the Council and Trust arranged Mr C's discharge from hospital and communicated with his family. We note that the CCG has appropriately offered to review Mr C's eligibility for NHS continuing healthcare.

  • NHS Halton Clinical Commissioning Group (20 002 742)

    Statement Upheld Other 29-Mar-2021

    Summary: We consider that Halton Borough Council did not clearly explain the section 47 enquiry process or explain why it changed its supervision arrangements for Mrs X's daughter. That was distressing for Mrs X. Also, we consider the Council, Warrington & Halton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Halton Clinical Commissioning Group's poor complaint handling led to significant delays which caused Mrs X frustration and time and trouble.

  • Warrington & Halton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (20 002 742)

    Statement Upheld Other 29-Mar-2021

    Summary: We consider that Halton Borough Council did not clearly explain the section 47 enquiry process or explain why it changed its supervision arrangements for Mrs X's daughter. That was distressing for Mrs X. Also, we consider the Council, Warrington & Halton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Halton Clinical Commissioning Group's poor complaint handling led to significant delays which caused Mrs X frustration and time and trouble.

  • Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust (19 017 100)

    Statement Not upheld Other 17-Feb-2021

    Summary: The Ombudsmen find no fault in a Council and Trust's decision not to implement the recommendations of an investigating officer. The complaints policy sets out that investigations will be subject to senior approval and the Trust provided reasons for setting the investigator's findings aside.

  • Surrey & Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (19 019 904)

    Statement Not upheld Other 21-Dec-2020

    Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to properly monitor two homecare agencies it commissioned to provide care to her mother, Mrs C. She also said the Trust's mental health assessment was poor as it failed to record visible bruising to Mrs C's face. The Council's safeguarding investigation could not determine the cause of bruising found on Mrs C's body after she was admitted to hospital in 2019. The Trust said its officer did not notice any bruising when the assessment was completed. The Council accepted there had been systemic failings, but it could not substantiate the allegation of neglect. We cannot say the Trust was at fault in the way it completed the mental health assessment. There was fault by the homecare agencies commissioned by the Council, but we did not find fault in the way the Council monitored the agencies or in the way it completed a safeguarding investigation. The Council agreed to our recommendation and will arrange for a written apology to be sent to Mrs B for the injustice caused by the systemic failings identified.

  • Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (19 010 763)

    Statement Not upheld Other 02-Oct-2020

    Summary: Ms D complained about information she received about her mother's discharge from hospital to residential care and associated charges. The Ombudsmen have upheld Ms D's complaints about Manchester City Council. We have not upheld her complaints about Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust and Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust. The Council has accepted our recommendations, so we have completed our investigation.

  • Leeds City Council (18 006 125)

    Statement Upheld Other 23-Jul-2020

    Summary: Mr X complains about the decision of his daughter's care provider to withdraw her residential placement. He complains Leeds City Council was powerless to hold the care provider to account. He also complains about the Council's handling of his complaint. The Ombudsmen finds fault with the Council. We have recommended Leeds Clinical Commissioning Group, as commissioner of continuing healthcare, apologise to Mr X and his daughter, and to pay them a financial remedy.

  • NHS Leeds Clinical Commissioning Group (18 006 125)

    Statement Upheld Other 23-Jul-2020

    Summary: Mr X complains about the decision of his daughter's care provider to withdraw her residential placement. He complains Leeds City Council was powerless to hold the care provider to account. He also complains about the Council's handling of his complaint. The Ombudsmen finds fault with the Council. We have recommended Leeds Clinical Commissioning Group, as commissioner of continuing healthcare, apologise to Mr X and his daughter, and to pay them a financial remedy.

  • The Wilf Ward Family Trust (18 006 125)

    Statement Not upheld Other 23-Jul-2020

    Summary: Mr X complains about the decision of his daughter's care provider to withdraw her residential placement. He complains Leeds City Council was powerless to hold the care provider to account. He also complains about the Council's handling of his complaint. The Ombudsmen finds fault with the Council. We have recommended Leeds Clinical Commissioning Group, as commissioner of continuing healthcare, apologise to Mr X and his daughter, and to pay them a financial remedy.

  • Allot Healthcare Services Ltd (17 013 763)

    Statement Upheld Other 01-Jul-2020

    Summary: We uphold Ms A's complaints about a care provider not providing her with reading and social support. Ms A suffered avoidable distress and inconvenience and she did not receive the services agreed on her care plan. To remedy the injustice, the Care Provider will reduce the bill by a further £1500 and apologise for the failings identified within one month. We do not uphold Ms A's complaint about billing her for a second carer.