THE Ombudsman service has ordered Bradford Council to pay a man £400 in compensation after finding failings in his father’s social care arrangements.

Bradford Council has also been told to issue an apology and review its procedures.

A man, named only as Mr B, had made a host of complaints to the Local Government Ombudsman about the care of his father, named as Mr C, who has since died.

The Ombudsman investigated 12 complaints dating back to 2014 and 2015 and found the Council was at fault in some but not in others.

Bradford Council had placed Mr C in a residential home, mental health specialist Walmer Lodge in Manningham, and he was later moved to a nursing home.

According to the Ombudsman’s report, a Council social worker wrote a letter supporting an application for Mr C to have a blue badge for disability parking, as well as disability living allowance.

But Mr B did not use the letter because he said it contained two inaccurate claims, that Mr C “has had numerous falls” and that he “suffers from a terminal illness”.

The Ombudsman’s report says that Mr C had fallen before, and use of the word ‘numerous’ was open to interpretation.

But it adds: “Mr B pointed out, correctly, that Mr C was not terminally ill at the time. The Council accepts this was ‘not completely accurate’ and at the time the social worker wrote the letter, Mr C’s health problems were ‘not officially a terminal illness’.

“Having health problems, even very serious ones, is not the same as being terminally ill. Whether someone has a terminal illness or not is a medical diagnosis. Mr C simply did not have a diagnosis of terminal illness at the time of the letter. The statement was inaccurate. The Council was at fault here.

“The Council suggested the social worker included the statements believing it was important that Mr C’s applications should succeed.

“Wishing for an application to succeed does not excuse exaggeration or inaccuracy.

“The Council’s first responsibility here was to ensure it gave accurate information.”

The report says the Council also took eight months to respond “substantively” to Mr B’s complaints and failed to signpost him to the Ombudsman’s service when he said he was dissatisfied with its response.

A spokesman for Bradford Council said: “We have apologised to Mr B and paid the compensation and we are in contact with the Ombudsman’s Office to implement other actions that they raised as a result of its investigation.”