LGO decisions

Case and summary Date added Categories
Cambridgeshire County Council 13 016 935 [2015] MHLO 9 (LGO) — LGO's summary: "Complaint from a woman that the council moved her husband into a residential home against both his and her wishes. She says she was forced to accept this course of action and the council failed to properly consider her preference of care home. The Ombudsman upheld the complaint and found fault causing injustice. Recommendations: To remedy the injustice caused, we recommend the council (within three months of the date of our report): (1) apologise to the woman for the failures outlined in our report. This apology should accept responsibility for the faults, and acknowledge the impact these had on her. It should also include an assurance that the same faults will not happen again, and explain what steps have been taken to ensure this; (2) set a timetable for refresher training for social care staff on mental capacity assessments, best interests decisions, deprivation of liberty and the role of the Court of Protection and how to advise the public on their rights. This may involve the council reviewing the current status of residents who may be deprived of their liberty without proper authorisation; and (3) pay the woman £750 to recognise the distress caused by the failings identified and the time and trouble she has expended in making the complaint." 2015‑01‑31 20:25:19 2015 cases, Brief summary, LGO decisions, Transcript

Kirklees MBC 11 004 229 [2013] MHLO 122 (LGO/PHSO) — Ombudsmen find maladministration in case involving deprivation of liberty. [Summary required.] 2013‑12‑21 22:15:43 2013 cases, LGO decisions, No summary, Transcript

Avon and Wiltshire MH Partnership NHS Trust and Wiltshire Council 09 005 439 [2012] MHLO 147 (LGO) — "Citing section 117 of the Mental Health Act, which makes provision for patients who have been compulsorily detained under the Act to receive free aftercare, Miss M complained it was wrong for Mrs M to have funded her own care during the five years she spent as a resident of the care home. The Ombudsmen did not uphold any of Miss M’s complaints. Although they found there was no doubt Mrs M had had a severe and enduring mental illness over many years, they could not conclude that her period of residence in a care home, in the last years of her life, was linked to aftercare arising from compulsory detention in hospital some 15 years earlier. Because Mrs M’s general deterioration could not be definitely attributed to her mental health problems, the Ombudsmen could not therefore conclude that the care home’s fees should have been met from public funds. They also found that, despite some procedural failings, Mrs M did not fail to receive the medical or social care services that she needed from the trust or the council." [Summary required.] 2012‑12‑20 21:47:19 2012 cases, LGO decisions, No summary, Transcript

LGO decision: Kent County Council 10 012 742 [2012] MHLO 102A — "In her report concerning services for a young woman with learning disabilities, the Ombudsman says: 'The Council’s failure to complete an assessment before the young woman was 18 caused her the injustice of losing services she was assessed as needing. The support plan that was eventually produced did not include services to meet these needs.' In addition, the Council’s poor communication led to uncertainty, confusion and frustration for the young woman and her family, and she was denied a direct payment and the choice to arrange her own respite care." 2012‑09‑30 22:18:59 2012 cases, Detailed summary, LGO decisions, No transcript

LGO decision: Kent County Council 11 001 504 [2012] MHLO 101 — "In her report concerning the elderly woman's residential care payment, the Ombudsman says: 'The Council’s internal guidance said that staff could only use the Council's own homes, or places it had 'pre-purchased', or community hospitals. The requirement to offer service users a genuine choice of placement when they are assessed as needing residential care is enshrined in law. The guidance did not adhere to these principles.'" 2012‑09‑30 22:13:45 2012 cases, Detailed summary, LGO decisions, No transcript

LGO decision: Jones 10 010 739 [2011] MHLO 191 — "A case where the DoL decision taken was not the 'least restrictive' option." [Summary required.] 2012‑08‑18 22:21:26 2011 cases, LGO decisions, No summary, No transcript

LGO decision: Dorothy 10 013 715 [2011] MHLO 190 — "A case where a DoL application was not made promptly and the care home's/council's approach to restrictions placed on the complainant and her mother was flawed." [Summary required.] 2012‑08‑18 22:17:51 2011 cases, LGO decisions, No summary, No transcript

LGO decision: Medway Council 06/B/12248 and Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council 06/B/12247 (29/4/08) — After funding under s117. 2008‑08‑21 14:38:56 2008 cases, Detailed summary, LGO decisions, Transcript

LGO decision: North Yorkshire County Council 05/C/13158 (24/7/07) — After funding under s117 (top-ups). 2008‑08‑21 14:34:17 2007 cases, Detailed summary, LGO decisions, Transcript

LGO decision: Poole Borough Council 06/B/7542 (5/9/07) — Duties under s117. 2008‑08‑21 14:27:53 2007 cases, Detailed summary, LGO decisions, Transcript

LGO decision: Bath and North East Somerset Council 06/B/16774 (12/12/07) — Duties under s117. 2008‑07‑31 12:14:55 2007 cases, Detailed summary, LGO decisions, Transcript