Summary: The Ombudsman has no power to investigate Miss C’s complaints about (a) floating support services by Midland Heart Limited (b) its failure to implement recommendations of an internal complaints investigation and (c) unsafe accommodation and facilities in the hostel. MHL does not provide these services on behalf of the Council.
Summary: Mr C complained the Council failed to tell them, for more than a year, that there would be an additional £241.99 charge per week for Mr C’s care support at his Housing with care accommodation. As a result a debt of £14,341.40 accumulated. I have upheld Mr C’s complaint
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint about an assault on a resident at a Care Home. This is because the complainant does not have the resident’s consent to make a complaint on her behalf or to access and share her data.
Summary: The Council was at fault for delay in agreeing a residential placement for the complainants’ son. This was because of fault in how the Council assessed the cost of his care. There were further faults in communications around this issue and associated complaints around an ‘ordinary residence’ dispute and the son’s contribution to his care costs. The Council also delayed excessively investigating a complaint into these matters. These faults caused injustice which the Council agrees to remedy with an apology and payment to the complainants, as well as procedural improvements.
Summary: The alleged financial abused carried out by a carer was not a result of any fault by the care agency. It had appropriate management controls in place and took action once it became aware of the carer’s actions. However its referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service was delayed, but this did not cause any injustice to the complainant.
Summary: The Council’s Care Connect service was at fault because it did not have a proper process in place for accessing Mrs Y’s property. There was a delay in contacting the emergency services and the operator placed Mrs Y on hold without telling her why. Care Connect also failed to update Mr X’s contact details. The identified faults caused injustice to Mrs Y and Mr X. The Council has already taken steps to avoid the same mistakes happening again. It has agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendations to remedy the remaining injustice.
Summary: the Council did not tell Mr F he would have to pay for home care he did not receive when he was in hospital. The Council has agreed to refund these charges.
Summary: There was fault by the Council as it did not properly consider the information when refusing Mrs X’s application for a blue badge. However, as the Council offered Mrs X a new assessment there was no injustice from this fault. I have not found fault in the way the Council conducted the second blue badge assessment as it appears to have properly considered guidance and evidence, so I cannot question its decision.
Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a social worker while Mr J was in respite care, because an investigation cannot achieve the outcome Mrs J is seeking.
Summary: There was fault in the Care Agency’s responses to Mrs X’s complaints. But, these responses did not in themselves cause injustice to Mrs Y and Mrs X.
Summary: The complainant self-funded his own care. His representative complains about the care he received. I have upheld the complaint, because of concerns about some of the issues complained about. But the apology and changes already provided by the care provider are suitable remedies.
Summary: The Council was at fault when it did not specify how Mrs X would pay for transport costs; it will authorise the spending. It was not at fault when it asked her to repay holiday costs from her direct payment account.
Summary: The Council was not at fault in the way in which it carried out a safeguarding enquiry into Mrs X’s concerns about domiciliary care provided to her mother Mrs Y.
Summary: Mr X complains about the failure to provide for his son, Mr T’s mental health needs. The Ombudsmen found the care planning for Mr T on discharge was inadequate and the Council and Trust have agreed to remedy the injustice to Mr T and Mr X for the lost opportunity to put services in place. The Ombudsmen also found evidence of fault in the Trust’s failure to follow one of its admissions procedures. However, this has not caused an injustice.
Summary: The Council acted with fault when managing the collection and storage of a vulnerable adult’s personal possessions and when considering an application to register for its Shared Lives Scheme.
Summary: There has been confusion about the payments made to the complainant to help her look after her disabled sister. The Council’s Panel decisions are also not properly recorded and the complainant’s wish to return to work has not been fully considered. The Council has accepted the Ombudsman’s recommendations for procedural change and a payment for the avoidable distress.
Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s delay in carrying out a safeguarding investigation. The Ombudsmen find some evidence of fault in the Council’s record-keeping, in communicating with Ms X and delay in an investigation. The Council has now apologised to Ms X for its poor communication and this is a suitable remedy. There is no evidence of fault on the part of the Trust or CCG.
Summary: The Council was at fault when it delayed sending an invoice, which was based on inaccurate information, for almost one year. It will waive £1,000. It was also at fault when it did not properly consider Mr X’s view that they did not need a care package. It did not review it as promised, but this did not cause significant injustice.
Summary: The Council offered to re-assess Mr Y for minor adaptations once it became aware that his DFG application was not progressing and some of his needs were unmet. There is no fault in the approach taken. However the Council delayed in responding to Mr Y’s complaint and used a multiple stage complaint procedure. This fault caused time and trouble which the Council will remedy with a payment of £100 and some procedural changes.
Summary: The Council was at fault when it delayed assessing Mrs X and providing the support it found she needed for 20 months. It will pay her £1500 and £250 for the family. It will also take action to prevent similar problems in future.
Summary: There was fault by the Council when it made arrangements with a private provider to care for Mrs X. It failed to ensure financial contributions were properly explained to her father. Also, the care provider failed to keep proper records about Mrs X’s finances. The Council has agreed to a remedy for the injustice caused by these faults and to ensure practices are improved in future.
Summary: The Council has provided a poor service to Mrs C in regard to her adult social care. Mrs C’s medication, shopping and laundry needs are consistently not met.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A’s complaints about the care provided to her step mother, Mrs B. This is because the care provider has apologised for the failings and it is unlikely the Ombudsman could achieve any more than that.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs M’s complaint about her mother’s care charges. An investigation is unlikely to find the Council is at fault for charging for cancelled home care visits.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about the way the Council conducted an assessment of his need for a Disabled Facilities Grant. This is because it is unlikely he could add to the Council’s response or make a different finding of the kind Mr A wants even if he investigated.
Summary: There is evidence of fault causing injustice to Ms Y in the assessment and care planning process. To remedy that injustice the Council will arrange an independent re-assessment of Ms Y and undertake some procedural improvements.
Summary: The Council was at fault, as it failed to tell Mr X or his social worker of arrears from care costs within a reasonable timescale. The Council’s offer to reduce the debt remedies the fault and it has agreed to write off the rest of the debt as a goodwill gesture.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr D’s complaint the Council did not do enough to trace him when his father died. It is unlikely an investigation would find fault.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that he should be reimbursed interest he would have accrued if the Council had returned a copy of his wife’s Will sooner. This is because the Council’s actions have not caused Mr B a significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss B’s and Mrs C’s complaints for Mr D that the Council has failed to arrange suitable care according to their wishes, and its officers have treated them badly and refused to listen to them. We can neither decide they are suitable representatives for him nor achieve a worthwhile result while the matters in the complaint are before the Court of Protection
Summary: There are other bodies better placed to deal with a complaint about the actions of a Social Worker accused of harassing someone. Mr X first needs to complain to the Council before we can investigate his complaint about the failure to complete an assessment of his needs. It is too late to investigate Mr X’s complaint about events which happened four years ago.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint that her father should not incur annual increases in his care fees. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the care provider to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
Summary: Mrs C complained about the way in which the Council failed to properly communicate with her during its safeguarding and complaint investigation. I have upheld the complaint.
Summary: Mr A complains about the Council’s handling of a complaint he made against a charity commissioned to provide a service on the Council’s behalf. As there are insufficient grounds to warrant further investigation, the Ombudsman will not pursue the complaint any further.
Summary: Mr and Mrs A complain the Council failed to tell them about noise problems associated with the tenant in the flat below them before they moved in and that it has failed to take effective action to address the problems. While the Council has acknowledged it did not tell the complainants about the age mix in their housing block, as it has now confirmed it has changed their banding priority to allow a move to alternative accommodation in the near future, the Ombudsman will not pursue the complaint any further.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s late complaint about poor quality shower installation work because he could not now investigate it effectively.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about records the Council holds about the complainant. This is because it is unlikely the Ombudsman could add to the Council’s response. In addition, the complainant could complain to the Information Commissioner.
Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s actions in relation to works undertaken on Mr B’s home under a Disabled Facilities Grant. The actions of the Home Improvement Agency and the Contractors are not within the Ombudsman’s remit.
Summary: The care provider was not at fault in offering a place to Mr X at a care home from which he went missing and for charging Mrs X for the costs of one to one care to prevent Mr X from going missing again. But its actions have caused injustice to Mrs X as it wrongly asked her to remove Mr X without initially giving proper notice and wrongly charged her for the costs of responding to the safeguarding and care quality commission’s enquiries and the costs of staff attending when Mr X went missing.
Summary: there was fault in the way the Council carried out an independent mobility assessment for a Blue Badge at the appeal stage and that caused Mrs X injustice. The Council has accepted my recommendations for a remedy.
Summary: The Council’s failure to use a worker with appropriate experience and training in autism when completing a care assessment was fault. It will carry out a new assessment using a worker with the appropriate training.
Summary: Mr P complains about a new door fitted as part of Disabled Facilities Grant works. He says the door is not as expected. The Council has already acknowledged fault in its handling of the case and has provided a reasonable remedy. The Ombudsman has not found any evidence of additional fault. She has upheld the complaint and completed the investigation.
Summary: The Council should have given Mrs X more information before she cashed in the bond belonging to her husband to pay his care home fees. It now apologises for the delay in contacting her, and agrees to pay what it would have funded had she not cashed in the bond, as well as offering an amount for her time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his mother, Mrs X’s, care charges. The Council carried out a financial assessment and it is unlikely further investigation would find fault.
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr A’s complaints about the Council’s decision to take court action against him. This is because the Ombudsman cannot consider matters decided by a court. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaints about Ms B’s living arrangements because it would be reasonable for Mr A to ask the Court of Protection to consider his views about where she should live.
Summary: Mrs C complained that a delay by the Council in completing a care assessment resulted in a financial injustice to her mother. Following my enquiries, the Council has agreed a financial remedy with Mrs C.
We look at individual complaints about local public services and all registerable social care providers in England.
We remedy injustice and share learning from investigations to improve services. When we find a council or care provider has done something wrong, we recommend how it should put it right. We are free to use and make our decisions independently.
