Local Government Ombudsman
The LGO has a new power, with effect from 1/10/10, to investigate complaints about privately-arranged and funded adult social care (in addition to the pre-existing power in relation to complaints about care arranged and funded by local authorities). See their website for details.
The following is an automatically-generated list of the pages in Category:LGO decisions:
- LGO decision: Bath and North East Somerset Council 06/B/16774 (12/12/07) — Duties under s117.
- LGO decision: Poole Borough Council 06/B/7542 (5/9/07) — Duties under s117.
- LGO decision: North Yorkshire County Council 05/C/13158 (24/7/07) — After funding under s117 (top-ups).
- LGO decision: Medway Council 06/B/12248 and Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council 06/B/12247 (29/4/08) — After funding under s117.
- LGO decision: Dorothy 10 013 715  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.]
- LGO decision: Jones 10 010 739  MHLO 191 — "A case where the DoL decision taken was not the 'least restrictive' option." [Summary required.]
- LGO decision: Kent County Council 11 001 504  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.'"
- LGO decision: Kent County Council 10 012 742  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."
- Avon and Wiltshire MH Partnership NHS Trust and Wiltshire Council 09 005 439  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 ..→
- Kirklees MBC 11 004 229  MHLO 122 (LGO/PHSO) — Ombudsmen find maladministration in case involving deprivation of liberty. [Summary required.]
- Cambridgeshire County Council 13 016 935  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 ..→
- Staffordshire County Council (18 004 809)  MHLO 41 (LGSCO) —
Failure to carry out DOLS assessments LGSCO decision: "The Council has acted with fault in deciding not to assess low and medium priority Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications. The Council is also taking too long to deal with urgent applications. This is causing a potential injustice to the thousands of people in its area who are being deprived of their liberty without the proper checks that the restrictions they are subject to are in their best interests." The final sentence of the conclusion states: "[I]t is not acceptable that the only way low and medium priority applications are resolved is because the people involved move away or die."