Adult care services archive 2021-2022


Archive has 1760 results

  • Nottinghamshire County Council (21 006 708)

    Statement Upheld Transport 18-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr B was unable to make an online application for a Blue Badge because of his disability. There was fault in the Council’s failure to offer an alternative way to apply for Mr B. The Council has already remedied this fault as it offered a telephone application to Mr B on the following day. The Council has also changed its procedures to allow telephone applications.

  • Staffordshire County Council (21 006 736)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 18-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to meet her late father’s social care needs. The Council was at fault as it failed to complete a holistic assessment of Mr Y’s needs. This leaves Mrs X with a sense of uncertainty and frustration over whether Mr Y may have been better supported before he died. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and to provide evidence it has revised its procedures. There was no fault by the Council in relation to the provision of equipment for Mr Y.

  • Torbay Council (21 008 650)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 18-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has not dealt properly with care for her son. The Council is at fault because there was a delay to direct payments being made. The Council has apologised to Mrs X. This is an appropriate remedy.

  • Brighton & Hove City Council (21 009 357)

    Statement Not upheld Transport 18-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr B complained that the Council unreasonably refused his application for a blue badge. We did not find fault with the actions of the Council.

  • Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (21 015 944)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Assessment and care plan 17-Mar-2022

    Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council’s decisions relating to Ms Y’s accommodation and how this would be funded. There is not a good reason Ms X did not complain sooner.

  • Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (21 015 982)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Assessment and care plan 17-Mar-2022

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council completed Mr X’s care plan and provided his transport to his vocational placement. That is because there is not enough evidence of significant injustice to Mr X, or his Shared Lives carers, Mr and Mrs Y.

  • London Borough of Lambeth (21 016 850)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Transport 17-Mar-2022

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge. This is because the Council has offered to review the case and do an in-person mobility assessment. It is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

  • Dorset Council (21 003 419)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 17-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained that the Council failed to properly deal with safeguarding concerns they raised about Mr X’s brother’s care of their mother. They also complained the Council should have done more to help Mr X’s brother. Mr and Mrs X said that being excluded from the mother’s life at the end of her life caused them distress. We do not find the Council at fault.

  • Richmond Villages Operations Limited (21 004 023)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 17-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr and Mrs E complained about the standard of care Mr F and the late Mrs F received when they were admitted to the Care Provider’s nursing care unit. We find the Care Provider caused an injustice when it failed to keep accurate records, failed to respond to the call bell in time and failed to properly communicate and work in partnership with the family. It also failed to properly explore Mrs F’s mental capacity. The Care Provider has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused.

  • Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (21 005 391)

    Statement Not upheld Residential care 17-Mar-2022

    Summary: We consider Boots UK Limited contributed to delays getting end of life medication to Mrs C before she died. Mr B suffered avoidable distress witnessing his mother in pain before she died. Boots should pay Mr B financial redress to recognise his injustice.

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.

Privacy settings