Direct payments

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Surrey County Council (16 009 854)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 09-Jun-2017

    Summary: The Council failed to complete timely and accurate assessments of care needs and support for a young adult and his parent carer. It made unsubstantiated statements about lower levels of support causing the carer considerable distress over several months. Once the Council completed the assessments it failed to properly set out the outcomes to the carer. It failed to ensure respite support for the parent carer was maintained pending the outcome of a fresh Carer's Assessment.

  • Surrey County Council (16 015 430)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 07-Jun-2017

    Summary: the Council was at fault in the way it responded to the news of the safeguarding allegation. It failed to act in a timely manner to ensure Ms X and Mr Y received support at a traumatic time. It failed to pass on information about their updated care plans. It agrees apologise and make a payment in acknowledgment that its actions caused additional distress. The complaint is upheld.

  • Trafford Council (17 002 887)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Direct payments 06-Jun-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A's complaint about the amount of direct payments her clients receive from the Council. This is because Mrs A is not a suitable representative to act on behalf of her clients, and there is no direct injustice to her from the Council's actions warranting investigation.

  • London Borough of Merton (16 009 984)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 22-May-2017

    Summary: The Council failed to make regular direct payments to Y and it recovered an assessed overpayment from Y's direct payments without considering his social needs. This caused his mother, Ms Z financial hardship and stopped Y socialising. The Council agreed to pay Ms Z and Y £200 each and to meet Ms Z to review Y's financial assessment. The Council is to change how it recovers overpayments.

  • Norfolk County Council (16 014 899)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 22-May-2017

    Summary: The Council correctly set up Miss Y's Direct Payment agreement but it failed to correctly monitor her Direct Payments. The Council was entitled to ask Miss Y for repayment of some of her Direct Payments but was at fault when it did not offer her a repayment plan. The Council has agreed action to remedy injustice caused to Miss Y by these faults. There were also faults in how the Council considered Mr X's complaint. It has apologised to him which is an appropriate remedy for these faults.

  • West Sussex County Council (16 013 969)

    Statement Not upheld Direct payments 03-May-2017

    Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his adult son that the budget the Council offered to meet his son's care needs was too low and that it unreasonably restricted his use of Direct Payments. The Council was not at fault in the way it considered the assessment of eligible care needs and the question of how to use the Direct Payments.

  • Liverpool City Council (16 010 550)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 19-Apr-2017

    Summary: The Council's delay in providing Mr and Mrs X with support and respite amounts to fault causing an injustice. The Council's failure to provide information about Mr X's contribution towards the cost of his care and the way this was calculated also amounts to fault.

  • Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (16 011 288)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 07-Apr-2017

    Summary: There is no fault in the Council's decision not to increase Mrs X's direct payments to reflect the care provider's increased fees. There is fault with how it has handled the matter and it delayed in re-assessing Mrs X's needs.

  • Derby City Council (16 011 429)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 04-Apr-2017

    Summary: The apology already provided is a suitable remedy for the Council's delay in starting direct payments as it also provided a managed service throughout this time.

  • Sheffield City Council (15 017 827)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 03-Apr-2017

    Summary: Mrs C complained to us about the council's reassessment of her needs, which resulted in a reduction in her care support. There was no fault with the way in which the Council made its decision. However, there was a delay in dealing with Mrs C's complaint