This report concerns a case claiming for funding for care under s. 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The Ombudsmen found evidence of some failures of the part of the concerned Trust and Council, but in the absence of any consequent in justice that could be identified, did not uphold any of the complaints
The Communities and Local Government Committee calls on the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) to raise its game significantly. To deliver its role as independent arbitrator in disputes about unfair treatment or service failure by local authorities, the Local Government Ombudsman must tackle operational inefficiencies rapidly and conduct its own activities with credible effectiveness. The LGO must implement the changes identified by the recent Strategic Business Review. The LGO management's rationale for not publishing the 2011 Strategic Business Review in full was unconvincing and suggests there may be insufficient appetite for change within the LGO. The LGO must explain which findings from the Strategic Business Review will be implemented in full and in part, and provide a timetable for this. It also needs to set out the arrangements and timetable for appointing the new Chief Operating Officer (and their responsibilities). In future the LGO must be completely clear with all parties about the criteria it applies in order to determine whether cases are assigned to be resolved through a mediated process to achieve redress, or are allocated for full investigation and formal determination. Likewise the LGO must be transparent about the procedures that apply when any case is moved from one process to another - such as when mediation fails. The Government must explain how it will monitor the implementation of reorganisation at the LGO. An annual, independent staff survey should be reinstated at the LGO with results published.
In 2012, the Communities and Local Government Committee raised serious concerns about the performance of the Local Government Ombudsman [LGO] and called on it to raise its game significantly. The Committee recognises that over the past 12 months the LGO has made a concerted effort to act on its recommendations and become more accountable, efficient and transparent. There is still work to do, however, and the present report makes four recommendations aimed at allowing the LGO to continue to improve. These are: that the LGO publishes its staff survey in full, rather than summarising it as it did in 2012, that the LGO ensures that the timeliness of its decisions and its new case-handling quality control system are externally reviewed so that improvements in both are maintained, that at least one independent member be appointed to the board that oversees the LGO, and that the LGO appoint within 3 months an independent evaluator of complaints focused on its systems and services, not its decisions
This report presents proposals by the Law Commission for reforms to make it easier to complain if you suffer poor public services. The public services ombudsmen have wide-ranging powers to investigate complaints against health service providers, housing associations and a host of Government departments and agencies. Complaints are dealt with for free and can result in financial compensation and an apology. But the procedures for making a complaint are often outdated and inconsistent. For example, complaints must usually be submitted in writing and in some cases can be made only through an MP. The proposed reforms will help to keep cases out of court: under current rules the ombudsman should not deal with a complaint after court proceedings have begun, even if the complainant was badly advised to go to court. In future, the Law Commission would like courts to transfer appropriate cases to the ombudsman. The consultation focuses on five statutory ombudsmen: the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, and the Local Government, Health Service and Housing Ombudsmen
This report tells the story of Mr J, who was an active, outgoing and sociable man. He had Down's syndrome. He lived independently in rented accommodation with his wife. Newcastle City Council, latterly through the Coquet Trust, provided day-to-day support to Mr J and his wife to help maintain their independence. In 2005, owing to concerns about a significant deterioration in his skills and health, Mr J was admitted to hospital for a five to six week assessment. Mr J remained in hospital for seven months, some five of those after he had been declared ready for discharge. Mr J was discharged into inappropriate locked accommodation, which he only left following his death 10 months later. Mr J was 53. Mr J's brother, Mr K, complained about the care provided to Mr J. This joint investigation with the Local Government Ombudsman found significant failings on the part of both Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust and the Council. They are to compensate, and apologise to, the family. The NHS Trust and the Council will also prepare, share and update progress on an action plan showing what they have done (or will do) to prevent recurrence of their failings.
This publication contains reports by both the UK Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Local Government Ombudsman into the behaviour of the Department of Transport and Norfolk County Council in relation to the Councils refusal to purchase the house of Mr and Mrs Balchin in advance of an intended road bypass scheme in 1986. In both cases maladministration was found and the total amount of compensation due was £200,000. However the case illustrated the difficulty of investigating complaints that cross the jurisdictions and the need to reform some working arrangements for public sector Ombudsmen.
Local Government Ombudsmen investigate complaints of injustice arising from maladministration by local authorities and certain other bodies. Local Government Ombudsmen for England are members of the Commission for Local Administration in England, and this is funded by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) which bears policy responsibility for the legislative framework within which the Ombudsmen system operates. This report contains oral and written evidence taken by the Committee in order to examine the role and effectiveness of Local Government Ombudsmen for England. The Committee recommends that the ODPM publishes a summary of progress made to address the recommendations of the Commission in its 2003 review of the operation of the system and legislative framework.
A Joint Report by the Local Government Ombudsman and the Health Service Ombudsman for England, Investigations Into Complaints Against Buckinghamshire County Council and Against Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Mental Health Partnership, Second Report Session 2007-2008
A Joint Report by the Local Government Ombudsman and the Health Service Ombudsman for England, Investigations Into Complaints Against Buckinghamshire County Council and Against Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Mental Health Partnership, Second Report Session 2007-2008
This joint report from the Health Service Ombudsman and the Local Government Ombudsman investigates complaints made by Mr & Mrs Taylor against Buckinghamshire County Council and Oxfordshire & Buckinghamshire Mental Health Partnership Trust. The complaints concern the care provided to their son, Frank, an adult with severe learning disabilities, from June 2001 to September 2003. Frank has no speech; cannot bathe, shave or dress himself; needs assistance to go to the toilet; needs to wear incontinence pads at night or for any lengthy periods spent outdoors. He needs one-to-one attention for 95 per cent of his waking time. The Council took over responsibility for the operation and management of the home in July 2002. In the care home his care needs were never properly assessed, and a number of significant failings in the level of care were identified. Complaints to both organisations were dealt with slowly, and there was confusion about which body should address the separate aspect of the complaints. Frank was removed from the care home, and kept and cared for at home for three months with no external support. The Ombudsmen, acting jointly under the Regulatory Reform (Collaboration etc between Ombudsmen) Order 2007, investigated. They find maladministration causing injustice and anxiety and distress to Frank and his parents. The conditions and care within the care home were unacceptable, and the Council failed to recognise that when taking over management responsibility. Frank's human rights may also have been infringed. The Ombudsmen recommend a payment of £32,000 as remedy for the injustice and distress caused.
The Communities and Local Government Committee calls on the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) to raise its game significantly. To deliver its role as independent arbitrator in disputes about unfair treatment or service failure by local authorities, the Local Government Ombudsman must tackle operational inefficiencies rapidly and conduct its own activities with credible effectiveness. The LGO must implement the changes identified by the recent Strategic Business Review. The LGO management's rationale for not publishing the 2011 Strategic Business Review in full was unconvincing and suggests there may be insufficient appetite for change within the LGO. The LGO must explain which findings from the Strategic Business Review will be implemented in full and in part, and provide a timetable for this. It also needs to set out the arrangements and timetable for appointing the new Chief Operating Officer (and their responsibilities). In future the LGO must be completely clear with all parties about the criteria it applies in order to determine whether cases are assigned to be resolved through a mediated process to achieve redress, or are allocated for full investigation and formal determination. Likewise the LGO must be transparent about the procedures that apply when any case is moved from one process to another - such as when mediation fails. The Government must explain how it will monitor the implementation of reorganisation at the LGO. An annual, independent staff survey should be reinstated at the LGO with results published.
This is an investigation, carried out jointly by the Health Service Ombudsman and the Local Government Ombudsman, into serious complaints about the support provided to a vulnerable person with long history involvement with mental health services, living independently in the community, by 5 Boroughs Partnership Trust and St Helen's Metropolitan Borough Council. The complaints, made by the vulnerable person's cousin, were: that the consultant psychiatrist failed to respond appropriately; that there was no support in claiming for welfare benefits; that care plans were not implemented; and that no one had responded appropriately to developing signs of risk. The first two of the complaints were not upheld but it was found that the Trust and Council had failed in their joint responsibility
This report tells the story of Mr J, who was an active, outgoing and sociable man. He had Down's syndrome. He lived independently in rented accommodation with his wife. Newcastle City Council, latterly through the Coquet Trust, provided day-to-day support to Mr J and his wife to help maintain their independence. In 2005, owing to concerns about a significant deterioration in his skills and health, Mr J was admitted to hospital for a five to six week assessment. Mr J remained in hospital for seven months, some five of those after he had been declared ready for discharge. Mr J was discharged into inappropriate locked accommodation, which he only left following his death 10 months later. Mr J was 53. Mr J's brother, Mr K, complained about the care provided to Mr J. This joint investigation with the Local Government Ombudsman found significant failings on the part of both Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust and the Council. They are to compensate, and apologise to, the family. The NHS Trust and the Council will also prepare, share and update progress on an action plan showing what they have done (or will do) to prevent recurrence of their failings.
This report relates to a stroke patient who died of a pulmonary embolism. The patient's niece complained that poor care and lack of nutrition led to the patient's early death. The Ombudsmen decided that the Council and PCT in question did not act in line with recognised quality standards or established good practice and that the care the patient received amounted to service failure. However, they did not find that the poor nutrition and hydration could be linked to the patient's death
The public services ombudsmen provide a vital redress mechanism for aggrieved citizens; they are free for complainants, confidential and swift. This report deals with the five public services ombudsmen operating in England and Wales: (1) The Parliamentary Commissioner; (2) The Local Government Ombudsman; (3) The Health Service Ombudsman; (4) The Public Services Ombudsman for Wales; and (5) The Housing Ombudsman. The overarching aim is to recommend modernisation of the statutes for these ombudsmen: clarifying them where required; reforming them where the Commission thinks this would facilitate the work of the ombudsmen; increasing transparency and accountability where necessary. The Commission could not consider fundamental institutional design, and did not look at the creation of new ombudsmen or the amalgamation of the existing ombudsmen. The subject matter of the ombudsmen's work or the definition of "maladministration" was also not considered. The report is divided in to 5 parts including the recommendation to commission a general review of the role of the public services ombudsmen and their relationship with other institutions for administrative justice, such as judicial review or tribunals; access to the ombudsmen; the ombudsmen process; resolution, report & sharing experience; and independence & accountability
In this report the Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) calls for a 'People's Ombudsman' and says the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO), which investigates complaints against the NHS and other government departments and agencies, is outdated. Citizens should have direct and more user-friendly access to the Ombudsman. None of the Ombudsmen created since the PHSO's operations were established in legislation 47 years ago have adopted the same restricted model as the Parliamentary Ombudsman. As a priority, the restriction on citizens' direct and open access to PHSO, known as the MP filter, must be abolished (as is already the case in respect of NHS complaints). PHSO must be able to receive complaints other than in writing: such as in person, by telephone or online, just as is expected of any normal complaints system. PHSO should have powers to investigate areas of concern without having first to receive a complaint from a service user. Parliament should strengthen the accountability of PHSO. PASC, along with other Departmental Select Committees, should make greater use of the intelligence gathered by the PHSO to hold Government to account. A consultation should be held on the creation of a single public services ombudsman for England. At the same time, there must be a distinctive ombudsman service for UK non-devolved matters.
Failure to comply with parking restrictions disrupts traffic, increases road congestion, heightens risks of accidents and delays public transport schedules. The Committee's report considers a number of measures required to improve parking enforcement policy in Britain, including the key recommendation that we need to move to a single country-wide system of decriminalised parking enforcement (in place of the current dual system of localised enforcement where parking policy is administered by local authorities in some areas and by the police in others). Although transferring responsibility for parking enforcement to local government has succeeded in raising levels of enforcement and compliance, poor administrative practices causes driver frustration and wastes resources, and threatens to bring the decriminalised parking regime into disrepute. Other recommendations include: the establishment of clear performance standards in applying parking restrictions; improved recruitment, remuneration and training to ensure the development of a professional parking service; greater transparency in the procedure for challenging penalty charge notices and an increased awareness of the role of the parking adjudication service; and the need for local authorities to develop parking strategies which meet local objectives, focusing on congestion targets, road safety and accessibility issues.
This report presents proposals by the Law Commission for reforms to make it easier to complain if you suffer poor public services. The public services ombudsmen have wide-ranging powers to investigate complaints against health service providers, housing associations and a host of Government departments and agencies. Complaints are dealt with for free and can result in financial compensation and an apology. But the procedures for making a complaint are often outdated and inconsistent. For example, complaints must usually be submitted in writing and in some cases can be made only through an MP. The proposed reforms will help to keep cases out of court: under current rules the ombudsman should not deal with a complaint after court proceedings have begun, even if the complainant was badly advised to go to court. In future, the Law Commission would like courts to transfer appropriate cases to the ombudsman. The consultation focuses on five statutory ombudsmen: the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, and the Local Government, Health Service and Housing Ombudsmen
A woman, Mrs D, and her son complained that the Environment Agency, Lancashire County Council and Rossendale Borough Council had failed to take appropriate action against a neighbour who was tipping, burying and burning large quantities of waste illegally, blocking public footpaths and intimidating anyone trying to use them. The activities, carried out over a period of seven years, made the landscape, which had been a local beauty spot, unrecognisable, made it impossible for her and her son to live peacefully in their family home; and may well have caused long-term damage by polluting the land and local water supplies. The Parliamentary Ombudsman and Local Government Ombudsman jointly investigated and fully uphold the complaint, finding maladministration, by all three bodies, that caused considerable injustice over a lengthy period. The Ombudsmen make five recommendations in relation to the complaint, including making good the financial loss on the value of the property, estimated at £35,000 by the District Valuer, and paying £60,000 compensation for the distress caused. In addition, the Environment Agency and Lancashire County Council should put in place an agreement on how to work together on illegal waste matters.
The purpose of the report is to distil experience from this parliament and to assist the new committee in the next parliament. It considers how the Committee approached its work, the way it has used research and how this might be strengthened, and its own assessment of performance against the core tasks set by the Liaison Committee. It then suggests some matters the new committee might consider examining in the next Parliament. These include both 'unfinished business', topics the Committee looked at over the Parliament to which the successors might wish to return, and new developments, which the Committee considers will emerge as major issues over the next five years.
The current Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, Ann Abraham, has announced her intention to retire. Dame Julie Mellor is the Government's preferred candidate for the post. A pre-appointment hearing was held on 6 July 2011 and the Committee has concluded that Dame Julie Mellor has both the professional competences and personal independence necessary to fulfil the role
These notes refer to the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (c. 28) (ISBN 9780105428077) which received Royal Assent on 30 October 2007
This Command White Paper entitled "Communities in control" (Cm.7427, ISBN 9780101742726) sets out an agenda to enhance the power of communities and help people to meet their own priorities. A number of proposals are put forward seeking to devolve more power to citizens and away from both central and local government. The Paper is divided into 8 chapters: Chapter 1: The case for the people and the communities having more power; Chapter 2: Active citizens and the value of volunteering; Chapter 3: Access to information; Chapter 4: Having an influence; Chapter 5: Challenge - holding people acountable who exercise power; Chapter 6: Redress; Chapter 7: Standing for office; Chapter 8: Ownership and control. These chapters set out, from the perspective of individual citizens, seven key issues for developing empowerment in the local community. The proposed policies in this White Paper largely apply to England but UK proposals wil be implemented in consultation with the devolved administrations.
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.