Summary: The Ombudsman cannot challenge a professional judgement where there is no procedural fault. The Council has completed a reassessment of Ms Z’s needs and reached a judgement on the support she needs. There is no fault in the way that it has done this. The Council is however at fault for delaying in making payments to Ms Z which caused Mrs Y anxiety and uncertainty.
Summary: the Trust provided a detailed and comprehensive response to Ms D’s complaint. The Trust accepted Mrs M’s care in hospital was not always up to standard. The Trust has apologised and taken steps to improve patient care. This is a satisfactory outcome. There is nothing more the Ombudsmen can add with further investigation.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that her mother, Mrs Y’s, care provider failed to contact her when her mother passed away and has since issued incorrect invoices. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the care provider’s actions and it is unlikely further investigation will find any. The Ombudsman is satisfied with the Council’s response and could not provide Mrs X with a different outcome.
Summary: The Council failed to properly consider repeated complaints Mr X and his family made about care being received by his mother. There was also fault in the way the Council dealt with a financial assessment. The Council agreed to pay Mr X £2,500 and to take action to prevent a reoccurrence of the issues identified.
Summary: There were some faults in the home care service The Care Bureau gave Mrs C. At my recommendation, The Care Bureau has agreed to apologise, make payments to Mr and Mrs B and Mrs C and review what happened.
Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council investigated safeguarding concerns about injuries Mrs Y sustained at the care home. The Council delayed in issuing its conclusions, but this did not cause a significant injustice.
Summary: When offering future care planning to two clients the Council failed to ensure social workers liaised with one another and did not approach another social worker’s client direct. And failed to ensure a client had speech and language therapy support when approached.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the complainant being investigated by the Council and the police. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Summary: we will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to provide Mr X with a copy of his daughter’s care plan as he now has a copy. He does not have his daughter’s consent to complain to us.
Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council has failed to safeguard her father. This is because the matter will be considered by a court. It is open to Ms X to return to the Ombudsman once court proceedings have finished.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A’s complaint for Ms C about the care provider’s refusal to provide her with information she has requested about her mother’s, Mrs B’s, care. It would be reasonable for her to apply to court for a decision on the provider’s refusal to disclose health records, and the Ombudsman could not criticise the care provider for not disclosing non-health care records without evidence of it being at fault or causing injustice.
Summary: There were delays and errors in the Council’s actions to resolve Mrs B’s previous complaint. At my recommendation, the Council has agreed to review what happened with a view to improving its practice.
Summary: The Council did not pursue the response to Ms A’s complaint promptly and thoroughly with the care provider. It agrees to apologise to Ms A, review the way the care provider responds to complaints and offer £250 to Ms A for the time and trouble of pursuing this complaint.
Summary: The Council delayed in telling Mrs A the outcome of the safeguarding investigation about her late father-in-law, Mr X, despite her repeated requests. The Council also accepts it failed to give Mrs A sufficient information and support before the deferred payment application was declined. The Council has already apologised and offered a payment in recognition of the distress caused but accepts my recommendation that it should go further to acknowledge the injustice which was suffered.
Summary: It is not fault that the Council declined to meet the cost of a stair lift which Mr and Mrs X had installed. There was no fault in how the Council applied the Disabled Facilities Grant process to Mr and Mrs X’s application, which determined they did not qualify for a grant.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council is failing to meet her care plan. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions and it is unlikely further investigation will find any.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about the way the Council has considered his Disability Related Expenditure (DRE). This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant the Ombudsman investigating.
Summary: there is no fault by the Council in its financial assessment of the complainant’s mother’s income when assessing charges for home care services.
Summary: Ms X complained about the decision of her mother’s care home that her mother could not return to the home from hospital, because it said it could no longer meet her needs. I did not uphold Ms X’s complaint.
Summary: The Council did not act in line with sections 25 and 67 of the Care Act 2014 when reviewing Miss D’s care and support needs. As a result she was not involved in the review. To remedy the injustice, it will carry out a further review or fresh assessment and apologise to Mr A.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaints about care his mother, Mrs B, receives. This is because Mr A does not have consent or standing to complain on behalf of Mrs B.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint the Council failed in 2013 properly to investigate the safeguarding concerns he reported to it about his client, Mr C. The complaint is late, there are no good reasons to investigate it so long after the original events and Mr B has no authority to complain for Mr C.
Summary: The Council reduced Mrs X’s daughter Miss Y’s care hours from 52 to 35 per week, and replaced the overnight care staff at Miss Y’s supported accommodation with a call service. There was no fault in the process officers followed in making those decisions to allow the Ombudsman to go behind their professional judgement.
Summary: there is no evidence of fault in how the Council provided support to Miss B’s son. However, there was a gap in provision when a social worker left. An apology and changes to procedures is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.
Summary: The Council was not at fault in the way in which it carried out financial assessments and investigated potential deprivation of assets in relation to care costs for Mrs A’s late mother, Mrs B. But, it was at fault in giving unclear advice to Mrs A’s father, Mr B, about the type of valuation it could accept for a second property they had owned. So, Mr B needlessly incurred the significant cost of a professional surveyor’s valuation on behalf of Mrs B. The Council has agreed to apologise and to reimburse Mr B for the cost of the valuation.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the proposed closure of a care home. This is because no significant personal injustice is alleged to have been caused to the complainant, and there is nothing further we could achieve for the complainant through further investigation.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about personal property. This is because we are unlikely to add anything satisfactory to the Council’s previous investigation or lead to a different outcome.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint about the Council failing to assist her father with his finances between 2013 and 2016. This is because the Council’s actions have not caused Mrs A or Mr B a significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to the complainant that it cannot give her a carer’s bus pass. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and the Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcome the complainant would like.
Summary: The Ombudsmen do not find that there was fault in a woman’s care by two hospitals causing a worsening of her condition. The Ombudsmen do not find that a council was at fault for the way it investigated safeguarding concerns or a delay in arranging a care package.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to safeguarding concerns raised about the complainant’s father. This is because we could not add anything to the Council’s previous investigation.
Summary: The Council acted without fault in offering chargeable respite care while finding a care provider to provide home care. However it acted with fault in issuing an invoice for home care it did not provide.
Summary: There was some fault by the Council in how it considered Mr A’s blue badge application. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr A for this fault and offers him a new appeal assessment.
Summary: Mrs C is in a residential care home. There is no fault in the Council’s financial assessment of Mrs C’s income. There is no evidence that it should have disregarded income from pensions, savings or rental income.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint she wilfully deprived herself of assets. The Council has now reversed this decision. We could not achieve any more than this if we investigated.
Summary: The Care Provider delayed checking on Mrs E, despite knowing she was at risk of developing fever. Though Mrs E would probably still have needed hospital treatment it does leave Mr D with some uncertainty. The Care Provider failed to fully follow its complaints procedure, which caused frustration. The Care Provider will apologise and amend its complaints procedure
Summary: The complainant experienced increased frustration, distress, loss of opportunity and uncertainty when the Council’s and Trust’s integrated community mental health team failed to share with her a multi-disciplinary care plan after assessing her needs. The Council and the Trust also failed to properly consider the complainant’s request for direct payments. The Council and the Trust have agreed to the Ombudsmen’s recommendations and will apologise to the complainant and pay her £500 between them for the injustice caused.
Summary: To remedy the injustice caused, the Council should backdate its payments to the date it accepted Ms K’s daughter had eligible care needs.
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.
