LGO decisions
The old category structure used on this page is comprehensive as it contains every relevant case. The new database structure was introduced in 2019. It is more potentially useful than the old categorisation system: it includes all cases since January 2017, but only a minority of older cases: see Special:Drilldown/Cases. The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order; click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. Click on a page name to view the relevant page. Asterisks mark those cases which have been added to the new database structure.
| Case and summary | Date added | Categories |
|---|---|---|
| * Section 117 assessment delay West Sussex County Council (21 012 744) [2022] MHLO 3 (LGSCO) — "Summary: We found no fault by the Council and Integrated Care Board in terms of the Section 117 aftercare they provided to Mrs Y. However, we found the Council, Trust and ICB delayed significantly in carrying out a Section 117 review. They will apologise and pay Mr X a financial remedy in recognition of the distress and frustration this caused. The Council, Trust and ICB will also review their policies and procedures to prevent similar problems occurring in future." | 2022‑11‑14 22:12:40 | 2022 cases, After-care, Cases, LGO decisions, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| * LPA and contact Hertfordshire County Council (21 006 495) [2022] MHLO 2 (LGSCO) — Ombudsman's summary: "We have not found fault in the way the Council made its decisions regarding safeguarding enquiries, but there was a delay in its completion of the assessments and there was fault in the way the Council communicated with Dr C about the powers of the attorney and the requirement to apply to the Court of Protection. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy." | 2022‑08‑26 09:07:04 | 2022 cases, Cases, LGO decisions, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Other LPA cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| * Section 117 and Housing Benefit London Borough of Lewisham (20 006 910) [2021] MHLO 5 — The council, CCG and trust initially reneged on a promise to update their s117 policy, but eventually changed it to state: "If accommodation is included as part of after-care, it should not be charged for, nor should person be told to claim Housing Benefit. Service and utility charges should be deemed part of the s117 accommodation." Ombudsman's summary: "The Ombudsmen investigated and upheld an earlier complaint about charging for accommodation which should have been free under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983. We have now investigated a complaint about the [London Borough of Lewisham], [South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust] and [NHS South East London CCG] failing to carry out actions agreed during the earlier investigation. We have upheld the complaint. We have also found that an estimated 57 other patients may not have up-to-date section 117 aftercare plans. The organisations accept our recommendations, so we have completed our investigation." | 2021‑10‑25 20:27:06 | 2021 cases, After-care, Cases, Judgment available offline, LGO decisions, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| * Section status and aftercare Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust (19 012 290a) [2020] MHLO 21 (LGSCO) — "Summary: The Ombudsmen find there was fault by a Trust in giving a family incorrect information about a mental health patient’s status. When this came to light it caused the patient’s wife considerable stress which has not yet been fully addressed. The Ombudsmen also find that fault by a Council meant the patient’s wife suffered this stress for too long. The Ombudsmen has recommended small financial payments to act as an acknowledgement of the outstanding injustice." | 2020‑05‑21 21:47:57 | 2020 cases, After-care, Cases, Judgment available offline, LGO decisions, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| * Complaint not upheld by LGSCO Bassetlaw CCG (19 006 727a) and Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (19 006 727b) [2019] MHLO 67 (LGSCO) — LGSCO summary: "The Ombudsmen found no fault by the Council, Trust or CCG with regards to the care and support they provided to a woman with mental health problems. The Ombudsmen did find fault with a risk assessment the Trust completed. However, we are satisfied this did not have a significant impact on the care the Trust provided." | 2020‑04‑02 13:59:26 | 2019 cases, Cases, Judgment available offline, LGO decisions, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| * Carer's assessment failures Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust (18 018 548a) [2019] MHLO 66 (LGSCO) — LGSCO summary: "The Ombudsmen have upheld Mrs G’s complaint about the way her carer’s assessments were carried out. We have not found fault with the way the Trust, Council and CCG arranged Mr H’s accommodation under s117 of the Mental Health Act or how the Trust communicated with Mrs G and Mr H about this." | 2020‑04‑02 13:45:20 | 2019 cases, Cases, Judgment available offline, LGO decisions, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| * Section 117 complaint Milton Keynes CCG (17 018 823e) [2019] MHLO 61 (LGSCO) — "Whilst the Trust was acting on behalf of the CCG in carrying out the s117 actions, the CCG is ultimately responsible for s.117 provision, along with the Council. ... The CCG, Trust and the Council should, by 23 December: (a) Write to Mrs B apologising for the impact of the fault in relation to not refunding the care fees relating to the supported living placement. (b) Confirm with Mrs B and refund the supported living fees which have not already been reimbursed. Mrs B may need to provide additional information to the organisations about fees paid as part of this. (c) Write to Miss A and Mrs B personally and apologise for the impact the lack of s.117 planning had on both of them individually due to the length of time Miss A went without adequate support. They should also apologise for the uncertainty caused by not knowing whether the incidents outlined above could have been avoided. (d) Pay Miss A £1500 and Mrs B £1000 each in recognition of the impact of the and length of time Miss A had a lack of s.117 support. By 20 February 2020, the Council, CCG and Trust should create an action plan of how they will notify and cooperate with each other to ensure patients are assessed promptly and s.117 care put in place in line with the MHA Code of Practice. This action plan should include a review of progress and the impact of any changes following implementation of the plan." | 2020‑03‑04 21:52:39 | 2019 cases, After-care, Cases, Judgment available offline, LGO decisions, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| * Section 117 complaint NHS Guilford and Waverley CCG (18 007 431a) [2019] MHLO 60 (LGSCO) — "(1) Within one month of my final decision, the Council and CCG will: (a) Write to Miss X and Mr Y, acknowledging the fault identified in this decision and offering meaningful apologies; (b) Jointly pay Mr Y £500 for failure to provide support as outlined on his s117 aftercare plan, delayed care planning, loss of opportunity to re-engage him and distress as a result of poor communication around his care plan and eviction; (c) Jointly pay Miss X £150 for poor complaint handling, stress and inconvenience. (2) Within three months of my final decision, the Council and CCG will ensure that Cherrytrees and all other providers acting on their behalf under s117 review their policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the relevant parts of the Code of Practice: Mental Health Act Code 1983, the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 and the Care Act 2014, in relation to: (a) Care planning; (b) Daily record keeping; (c) Complaint handling, including ensuring all points are responded to adequately and complainants are properly signposted should they wish to escalate their complaint." | 2020‑03‑04 21:15:32 | 2019 cases, After-care, Cases, Judgment available offline, LGO decisions, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| * Complaint about community care delay Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (17 012 839a) [2019] MHLO 44 (LGSCO) — LGSCO's summary: "The Ombudsmen do not consider Derbyshire County Council and Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust delayed providing support for Mrs X’s mental health needs. We have not found fault with the way the Council decided what support she needed. The Ombudsmen consider Derbyshire County Council delayed completing Mr X’s carer assessment and should have considered carrying out an integrated assessment with Mrs X. However, it has remedied the distress Mr X suffered." | 2019‑08‑30 20:13:00 | 2019 cases, Cases, Community care, Judgment available offline, LGO decisions, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| * Failure to carry out carer's assessment Rotherham Doncaster & South Humber NHS Foundation Trust (18 010 101a) [2019] MHLO 43 (LGSCO) — LGSCO's summary of decision: "The Trust and Council were at fault in not carrying out a carer’s assessment and not involving Mrs S during her husband’s period of treatment. There was also fault in record-keeping and delays in responding to the complaint. These failings caused an injustice to Mrs S as she lost the opportunity for additional support and is likely to have suffered additional distress. The Trust and Council have already taken action to address these failings and improve processes. The Trust and Council have agreed to pay Mrs S financial redress and the Trust has agreed to monitor and report on improvements in its complaints handling." | 2019‑08‑22 23:00:08 | 2019 cases, Cases, Community care, Judgment available offline, LGO decisions, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| * Failure to carry out DOLS assessments Staffordshire County Council (18 004 809) [2019] MHLO 41 (LGSCO) — 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." | 2019‑08‑10 22:11:49 | 2019 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on MHLO, LGO decisions, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript
|
| 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, Judgment available on MHLO, LGO decisions, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript
|
| Kirklees MBC 11 004 229 [2013] MHLO 122 (LGO/PHSO) — Ombudsmen find maladministration in case involving deprivation of liberty. | 2013‑12‑21 22:15:43 | 2013 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, LGO decisions, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, 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." | 2012‑12‑20 21:47:19 | 2012 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, LGO decisions, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, 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, Judgment available on MHLO, LGO decisions, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, 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, Judgment available on MHLO, LGO decisions, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, No transcript
|
| LGO decision: Jones 10 010 739 [2011] MHLO 191 — "A case where the DoL decision taken was not the 'least restrictive' option." | 2012‑08‑18 22:21:26 | 2011 cases, LGO decisions, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, 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." | 2012‑08‑18 22:17:51 | 2011 cases, LGO decisions, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, 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, Judgment available on MHLO, LGO decisions, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, 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, Judgment available on MHLO, LGO decisions, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, 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, Judgment available on MHLO, LGO decisions, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, 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, Judgment available on MHLO, LGO decisions, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript
|
Article titles
The following 22 pages are in this category.
A
L
- LGO decision: Bath and North East Somerset Council 06/B/16774 (12/12/07)
- LGO decision: Dorothy 10 013 715 (2011) MHLO 190
- LGO decision: Jones 10 010 739 (2011) MHLO 191
- LGO decision: Kent County Council 10 012 742 (2012) MHLO 102A
- LGO decision: Kent County Council 11 001 504 (2012) MHLO 101
- LGO decision: Medway Council 06/B/12248 and Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council 06/B/12247 (29/4/08)
- LGO decision: North Yorkshire County Council 05/C/13158 (24/7/07)
- LGO decision: Poole Borough Council 06/B/7542 (5/9/07)
- London Borough of Lewisham (20 006 910) (2021) MHLO 5
The following category (in the blue box) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: