Only one Peterborough adult social services complaint upheld
The average complaint response time was 23 working days, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service.The figures form part of an annual review into complaints to be discussed at the council's adults and health scrutiny committee on 11 March.The case upheld by the ombudsman involved a man who complained about the care provided to his son, who has severe autism, learning and communication difficulties, and schizophrenia.The complainant said the council failed to arrange a Section 117 review for his son despite a recommendation by the ombudsman in May 2022.A Section 117 means a patient gets free aftercare when they leave hospital for support or services linked to their condition.The council was ordered by the ombudsman to apologise, and to pay £100 to the complainant.
Follow Peterborough news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Metro
a day ago
- Metro
Brazilian butt lift bans, solar-farm scare stories and tenant tribunals
Do you agree with our readers? Have your say on these MetroTalk topics and more in the comments. I welcome the government crackdown on 'cosmetic cowboys' doing unlicensed procedures such as 'Brazilian butt lifts' or offering Botox and fillers, often in unsafe conditions (Metro, Thu). Hopefully, this will extend to surgeons operating on Brits abroad – some of whom have ended up dead. Of course this is the symptom of a wider problem – that people feel the need for these surgeries at all. Limiting access to them should make them less normalised, which will help. But we need to deal with the fact that tens of thousands of people are so unhappy with their bodies. That is a damning indictment of modern society and evidence we have a long way to go to stop judging people by their appearance, especially women, because – let's face it – it's mainly women getting these procedures. It's women who feel so insecure they are willing to risk life and limb to make themselves look nearer to some imaginary 'ideal'. We still judge women based on that shallow, predictable physical ideal. It's sexist, it's disgusting and it's killing people. Ryan Cooper, London These procedures won't make you look any 'better' – whatever that means – and it won't make you feel any better. The desire to have this done comes from insecurity about your body, pushed by massive amounts of ingrained and internalised sexism in society. You need self-acceptance, not bigger lips. No one's feelings about your body are as important as yours and you will care less about it as you get older – it's one of the best things about getting old. Any procedure has risks. Having unnatural rubbish pumped into your body is unhealthy and potentially dangerous, even if done by a qualified professional. It's society that needs to change, not you. If anyone tells you otherwise, then they're a git. And you shouldn't waste your time caring about gits. Helen Shaw, Liverpool Molly Neville (MetroTalk, Mon) thinks energy secretary Ed Miliband's suggestion that new-build homes should be fitted with solar panels is the precursor to building solar farms on all farmland. This is the same sort of thinking that suggests speed limits lead to the banning of private cars, low-traffic neighbourhoods limit people's movement to their immediate area and getting vaccinated is a plot to inject us with tracking devices. These are the modern equivalents to believing that when we sneeze we are vulnerable to evil spirits entering our bodies and are driven by the same factors – irrational fear and ignorance. Martin, London Further to Rushanara Ali having to resign as Labour's homelessness minister after hiking the rent on her east London property (Metro, Fri). More Trending If there are any other tenants who have had steep rent rises as I have, it would appear Ms Ali is not alone. First-tier tribunals, which deal with claims of unfair rent increases, allow landlords to impose huge rent rises with impunity. Where I live, most landlords now seem to be companies and therefore expect large profits, which these tribunals seem willing to permit. I doubt the government's forthcoming Renters' Rights Bill will make any difference. Edmund Hill, Brighton Chancellor Rachel Reeves is reported to be considering introducing VAT on private healthcare. The government should instead give tax relief on private healthcare, thus easing the pressure on the NHS. Another burden on the NHS is health tourism. Visitors from 155 countries have run up £219million of unpaid NHS bills. We should demand that these countries pay their citizens outstanding bills or we stop their foreign aid. Clark Cross, Linlithgow MORE: The Metro daily cartoon by Guy Venables MORE: Jennifer Aniston says Matthew Perry's death is 'for the better' in heartbreaking confession MORE: Harvey Willgoose's mum says her son's murderer needs to be 'made an example of'
Telegraph
2 days ago
- Telegraph
Lord Kinnock's £2bn VAT raid would crush the NHS
Every now and then, the ghost of a politician past makes an appearance, as if to carry out the public service of reminding us that terrible leaders aren't a blight unique to our generation. Last week, Lord Kinnock urged the Chancellor to launch a VAT raid on private healthcare. The former Labour leader claimed the policy would raise £2bn in 'vital funding for the NHS and social care'. He said that 'many people are turning to private healthcare, not out of choice, but because they cannot afford to wait'. Many people are indeed turning to private healthcare, Lord Kinnock is right about that. He also correctly identifies the reason behind this being the long waiting lists, which have now become a permanent feature of the NHS. But, remarkably, he arrives at a diagnosis which would considerably worsen the situation. It was reported last year that almost half of 18- to 24-year-olds are opting to pay for a GP appointment in order to beat the waiting list on the NHS, with the total number of people going private to see a GP approaching four million. There has also been a 30pc increase in the number of people paying privately for hospital care across the UK, according to data released by the Nuffield Trust. This is happening, we are told, despite record levels of staffing and greater levels of funding within the NHS. In June, the Government entered an agreement with the independent healthcare sector as part of its plans to end the hospital waiting list backlog. Some of the statistics released at that time bring home the scale of the crisis in the NHS from across departments – in gynaecology, there is a backlog of 260,000 women waiting more than 18 weeks for treatment, while in orthopaedics, 40pc of patients were waiting longer than the 18-week target. All these figures point to an NHS that is failing to cope with the nation's healthcare demands, and is relying on the private sector to lend a helping hand both at the general and specialist care levels. How on earth, then, would slapping VAT on private healthcare help the struggling NHS? It would make it more expensive and price out many of its current customers, as at least some of those people would return to the NHS's burgeoning waiting lists. Every taxpayer who takes themself out of the NHS and into the private medical market already pays twice for the service. Once through their tax bill, and once through their private medical bill or insurance. On top of that, there is insurance premium tax to be paid on private healthcare, which last year brought in over £2bn for HM Revenue and Customs. Questions have also been raised around the veracity of the £2bn carrot which Lord Kinnock is dangling in front of the Chancellor as he pushes his VAT policy. For that amount to be raised, the tax would have to be levied on the use of private opticians and dentists, the latter being a service which the NHS is notorious for failing to provide. Tax expert, Dan Neidle, has suggested that the policy might in fact lose the Treasury money. It is businesses which pay for most private healthcare in this country, through providers such as Bupa, which currently do not charge VAT, nor do they recover their own VAT costs. But with the exemption scrapped, explains Neidle, businesses would be able to claim back the VAT on the provision of private healthcare, and providers could in turn reclaim their own VAT costs from the Treasury. People who ease the pressure on the perpetually ailing NHS by paying for private medical care out of their pockets should be incentivised to carry on doing so through tax deductions – not punished by higher taxes. And any VAT raid would backfire on the entire population by worsening the pressure on the state-owned healthcare system. Desperate as Rachel Reeves is for revenue-raising ideas, if she doesn't want her legacy to be the destruction of the NHS then she must stay clear of yet another disastrous VAT blunder.
The National
2 days ago
- The National
Only independence can keep Scotland's NHS safe from privatisation
But today those are values we constantly have to defend, often from choices being made at Westminster. So long as Scotland remains under Westminster control, our health service will never be fully safe from the push towards privatisation. As a registered mental health nurse for more than 36 years, who still works in our NHS, and as convener of the Scottish Parliament's Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, I have seen first hand the challenges our NHS faces, from recovering after the pandemic to tackling waiting times and supporting our dedicated workforce. READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon says she should have paused gender reform legislation Yet too often, our ability to respond to these challenges is hindered by decisions taken by a UK government, whether Tory or Labour, that answers to private donors before it answers to the people of Scotland. Westminster continues to hold the purse strings. It controls trade deals that could open the door to further private sector encroachment. And it is Westminster that dragged us out of the European Union against our will, with disastrous consequences for medical research, access to vital medicines, and staffing shortages. Under a Labour UK Government, we are witnessing the continuation of creeping privatisation. In England, outsourcing to private healthcare firms has reached record levels, and alarmingly, that same influence is now creeping into Scottish Labour itself. Figures revealed that Scottish Labour MPs have received almost £200,000 in donations from organisations or individuals linked to private healthcare companies. Half of all Scottish Labour MPs, including Ian Murray and Minister Kirsty McNeill, have benefitted from these donations. The largest single donor? Labour Together Ltd, a think tank formerly run by Keir Starmer's chief of staff, and funded by individuals with direct interests in private healthcare investment across the UK and beyond. When Labour's Health Secretary Wes Streeting (pictured) says he wants to 'hold the door wide open' to private investment in the NHS, and has himself taken over £220,000 from healthcare linked donors, it's not hard to see whose interests are being prioritised. No-one should be under any illusions, this isn't about fringe influence. This is about the heart of Labour policy, being shaped by those with a financial stake in a privatised healthcare system. And here's the crucial question: if a Labour Party led from London so deeply tied to private healthcare were ever in government in Scotland, what would they do to our NHS? READ MORE: Trust selling Highland clan's land for £6.8m under investigation If they are prepared to open England's health service to the market, and already take money from those who profit from it, what guarantee could the people of Scotland ever have that our NHS would remain truly public? The SNP will always oppose any attempts at the privatisation of Scotland's NHS. But as long as Westminster has the power to legislate over key areas, including trade agreements, regulatory frameworks, and funding models, Scotland's NHS is never fully safe, not from the Tories, and not from Labour. The truth is stark. Our NHS is only as safe as the government that controls the levers of power. And at Westminster, the trajectory is clear, toward a system where profit edges out public service. That's why independence matters. It's about having the power to protect what we value most, and to make decisions in line with Scotland's priorities, not Westminster's. With independence, we can guarantee that Scotland's NHS remains publicly owned, publicly operated, and free at the point of need. We can safeguard it not just for today but for generations to come. Clare Haughey is SNP MSP for Rutherglen and previously served as Minister for Mental Health and for Children and Young People. She is currently convener of Holyrood's Health, Social Care and Sport Committee.
