Summary: Mrs B complains the Council failed to offer her father, Mr C, a care home without a top-up fee and did not offer to pay the full fee the care home charged. It did not explain its duties under the Care Act.
Summary: The Council was at fault when it failed to maintain payments on life insurance policies when it was appointed as a Deputy by the Court of Protection. The Council has agreed to apologise, reimburse the estate of the deceased complainant and review its procedures.
Summary: The Council has failed to explain the reasons for its decision that Mrs F’s eligible care needs could “easily” be met at home. The Council needs to apologise and provide the reasons for its decision.
Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of its Blue Badge appeals process and the language used by a mobility assessor. The Ombudsman finds the Council failed to provide clear information about its appeals process and failed to fully address Mrs X’s complaint. The Ombudsman recommends the Council provides an apology and reviews the information it provides on its appeals process.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint alleging Council fault caused a domiciliary care charge. This is because we are unlikely to add anything more to the investigation carried out by the Council and lead to a different outcome.
Summary: There was no injustice caused to Mr A in the delay in sourcing an agency to provide support. The evidence shows Mr A was largely independent and only required help with his tenancy administration. The Council acknowledges Mr A’s social worker should have notified him of a cancelled appointment and it apologises for his failure to reschedule the appointment.
Summary: Ms D complained about the way in which she had been involved in decisions about her father’s care. She also believed that both falls her father had in his care home were preventable. I found there was fault resulting in injustice.
Summary: There is no evidence that the Council was at fault in the way it sought to meet Mr X’s eligible needs. The Council fulfilled its duty in offering a managed service: it was Mr X’s prerogative to refuse that. The complaint is not upheld.
Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed Mr X’s needs and adjusted his care package accordingly. The complaint is not upheld.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about the care provider’s actions when his mother, Mrs B, fell. This is because it is unlikely he could add to the care provider’s responses or make a different finding even if he investigated.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr D’s complaint the Council has not complied with his recommendations. It is unlikely we would find fault by the Council. We will not reinvestigate the complaint the Council allowed a carer to misspend Mr D’s son’s money.
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint alleging the Council has breached a court order. The Ombudsman has no power to enforce a legal judgement.
Summary: There has been a lack of clarity about the amount of direct payments the Council has been paying to Mrs B to arrange care for her son, C. But this has not adversely affected C or Mrs B. The Council has now properly reassessed the package
Summary: There is fault in the Council’s decision to reduce Mrs S’s personal budget. The Council will apologise to Mrs S and Mr Y and reassess Mrs S’s needs.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr D’s complaint the care provider has not refunded money following his mother’s death. The care provider has agreed to refund the money and there is nothing further the Ombudsman can achieve.
Summary: The Ombudsmen found a Council, CCG and Care Home failed to ensure a service user had clear information about the potential costs of residential care. However, in view of the number of variables, it is not possible to establish what would have happened without this fault. The Ombudsmen also found fault on the part of the Care Home in regard to how long it took to apply a revised fee. The Ombudsmen recommend apologies and a small financial payment.
Summary: The Ombudsmen found a Council, CCG and Care Home failed to ensure a service user had clear information about the potential costs of residential care. However, in view of the number of variables, it is not possible to establish what would have happened without this fault. The Ombudsmen also found fault on the part of the Care Home in regard to how long it took to apply a revised fee. The Ombudsmen recommend apologies and a small financial payment.
Summary: There is no evidence that the actions of the care provider caused injustice to Mrs A. The care provider has offered to refund Ms A for the period of time her mother was in hospital. The complaint is not upheld.
Summary: Mr and Ms C complained the care provider failed, on several occasions, to inform them when visits were late, early or unannounced. I have upheld the complaint.
Summary: There was fault by the Council as it did not give Mrs M leaflets on third party top-ups and the social worker did not check she understood the arrangement when her mother went into a care home. The Council refunding the £628.57 paid before Mrs M received the correct advice remedies the injustice caused to her.
Summary: The Council accepts it did not deal properly with the funding for a nursing home placement. It has therefore offered to backdate its contribution to 13 February 2016, having originally funded the placement from 1 July 2016.
Summary: The Ombudsman did not find fault in a complaint which alleged the Council did not correctly consider the complainant’s disabled brother’s expenses and disregards when it calculated the contributions he has to make towards the costs of his care.
Summary: we will not investigate this complaint that the Council charged Mr Y for home care he did not receive. Mrs X has withdrawn her complaint after the Council refunded Mr Y.
Summary: I have discontinued my investigation because Mavam Community Ltd is not an adult social care provider. It was not registered with CQC when Miss A received a service and it did not provide personal care. So the Ombudsman has no power to investigate the service it provided.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint alleging failures in the safeguarding process. This is because we are unlikely to add to the investigation carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about Council staff failing to sign in and out of his care home in 2015. This is because it is unlikely he could add to the Council’s response or make a finding of the kind Mr A wants.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s late complaint about care her late mother received between 2013 and 2014. This is because there are no good reasons to for the Ombudsman to disapply the law to investigate now.
Summary: The Council is at fault for not carrying out a financial assessment correctly and not providing clear and accurate information about it. The Council and the Trust are at fault for poor communication. There is no fault with other matters complained about.
Summary: Mrs E’s care home did not tell her family when she became unwell. This deprived her daughter from spending meaningful time with her mother before she died. The Council needs to apologise and pay financial redress.
Summary: Mr A complains the Council has acted unreasonably in deciding not to backdate direct payments for his care when it was responsible for the two month delay in setting the payments up. While there was some delay in the direct payment process caused by inadequate Council staffing, there are insufficient grounds to warrant proposing a backdated payment for this period and the Ombudsman will not pursue the complaint any further.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint her care provider did not give her enough notice when it withdrew care services in her area. This is because the provider apologised and offered to reinstate the services. The Ombudsman is satisfied with these actions and could not provide Mrs X with a different outcome.
Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council has calculated Mr X’s contribution towards the cost of his care, or taken into account his disability related expenses. The complaint is not upheld.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to agree to move his father Mr B, to a different care home. This is because Mr A does not have consent from his mother, Mrs B, who is Mr B’s next of kin, to make a complaint on his behalf.
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.
