Assessment and care plan


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (16 010 723)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 25-Apr-2017

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council went against a Best Interests decision and 'misled' him into agreeing to place his sister in a residential care home. Mr X says the care she received there was poor. The Council did not act contrary to a Best Interests decision and is not at fault in that regard. However, there were some issues with the care home placement and concerns about it not being able to meet Miss X's needs might have been picked up earlier. In particular, there is evidence the home left Miss X vulnerable to injury from exposure to the sun. The Council is at fault and Miss X suffered an injustice.

  • Cheshire East Council (16 009 334)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 24-Apr-2017

    Summary: The Council was not at fault for providing a care package to Mrs X whose needs had increased substantially after a hospital admission. The Council was at fault because care did not start when it should have and the Council did not communicate the ending of the package to Mr X. The Council also charged for more care than it assessed Mrs X to need. The Council has refunded overcharges, apologised and paid Mr X £150 to recognise the avoidable inconvenience and frustration.

  • London Borough of Barnet (16 012 648)

    Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 21-Apr-2017

    Summary: the evidence does not support Mr B's claim he has suffered significant injustice while waiting for adaptations to make his shower more user-friendly. It is not the result of fault by the Council that Mr B does not have the adaptations he wants in his kitchen.

  • Essex County Council (16 018 860)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Assessment and care plan 21-Apr-2017

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the charges for his grandmother's domiciliary care and support. There is no fault in the Council's decision to expect payment for chargeable services or for backdating the charges to when the services commenced. An investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

  • Isle of Wight Council (16 003 198)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 20-Apr-2017

    Summary: Overall the Council's actions in matters associated with social care assessment and personal budget for a disabled adult, and with investigation of possible benefit fraud, were not affected by fault causing significant injustice. There was minor fault in record keeping.

  • Staffordshire County Council (16 017 977)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Assessment and care plan 20-Apr-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the way the Council handled the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) process. This is because it is outside jurisdiction as the complainant is challenging the matter in the courts.

  • Nottinghamshire County Council (16 019 214)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Assessment and care plan 19-Apr-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A's complaint about the Council's decision to refuse to install a bath in his property. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the Council's decision to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

  • Leeds City Council (15 010 694)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 18-Apr-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsmen are satisfied that several health and social care agencies acted generally without fault in the care and treatment they provided to an elderly woman with significant health problems. However, the Ombudsmen did find fault with the communication surrounding the woman's admission to one care home and that care home's record keeping. The Ombudsmen also found fault with one nursing home's call bell responses times.

  • London Borough of Lewisham (16 000 962)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 18-Apr-2017

    Summary: Mr C complained to us about the way in which the Council responded to his request to be reassessed. Mr C said there were unreasonable delays and it has not resulted in the increase in hours he says he needs. I have upheld Mr C's complaint.

  • Dorset County Council (16 014 819)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 13-Apr-2017

    Summary: the Council failed to review a care package when asked and failed to explain how the allocated hours would meet Mrs B's assessed needs. An apology, payment of £250 and prioritisation of a review of Mrs B's care needs is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

;