Summary: The Ombudsmen find that the complainants’ son, Mr D, was caused significant injustice when the CCG and the Council failed to provide adequate support after his care provider terminated its contract in November 2015 and there was no contingency plan in place. The new provider did not meet all Mr D’s needs and his mental health deteriorated because of the lack of support. This culminated in him being admitted to hospital. Following his discharge he had to live with his parents for five weeks during which time they had little formal support and no carer’s assessment was carried out. This impacted adversely on Mr D’s well-being and that of his parents. The Council and the Trust delayed in transferring Mr D between teams which caused further distress and uncertainty and impacted on his support provision. The Ombudsmen recommend the CCG, the Trust and the Council apologise in writing to Mr D and pay a financial remedy to him and his parents.

Summary: The Ombudsman finds it was appropriate for the Council to respond to safeguarding concerns raised in relation to Mr K’s son. We have found some fault in how the Council responded to the complaint, but we are satisfied it has already apologised for this. We have therefore closed our investigation into Mr K’s complaint.

Summary: The complaint is about the Council’s decision to manage Mr B’s care within mental health services rather than learning disability services. The Council acted in line with the Care Act 2014, and Valuing People, so there is no fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman found the Home, on behalf of the Council and the CCG, had managed a patient’s nutrition adequately and made the correct referrals when swallowing difficulties arose. We also found there was not fault in the Home’s record keeping, communication and managing of residents’ finances.

Summary: Mrs C complained to us the care home where her husband had stayed for a period of respite care, had failed to provide him with the medication he needed. The Ombudsman found fault with the way in which the care home managed Mr C’s medications and how it investigated Mrs C’s complaint. The care provider has agreed to provide a written apology to Mrs C and pay an amount of £1,600.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has failed to properly assess the needs of her son, Y and her mother Mrs Z for adaptations to their property. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the family’s needs.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has delayed unreasonably and failed to provide suitable adaptations to meet the needs of her son, Y and her mother, Mrs Z through Disabled Facilities Grants. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters.

Summary: The Council has delayed in identifying a suitable supported living placement for Miss Y. It then took too long to respond to her formal complaint, and delayed in sharing copies of her assessment and support plan. This caused Miss Y injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy with the actions listed at the end of this statement.

Summary: Ms X has complained about the care her mother received from the home before she went in to hospital. There is evidence of fault with some aspects of Mrs Y’s care and with how the home communicated with her family. The home has already given a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council was fault in the way it provided a domiciliary care package to her father, Mr Y. The Council has accepted it was at fault. It has apologised to Mrs X and offered to reduce outstanding care costs by £1000 to remedy the distress caused by the inadequate care. It has also offered a payment in recognition of Mrs X’s time and trouble in pursuing her complaint.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council calculated his contribution to his support, also that it failed to signpost him to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman found no fault in the way it calculated his contribution but fault in the failure to signpost. This caused him distress. The Council will apologise and update its policy to ensure it signposts to the Ombudsman in future.

Summary: The Ombudsman has found evidence of fault by the Council in this complaint regarding its handling of third party top-ups towards the complainant’s mother’s care fees. He recommended the Council apologises to the complainant and pay her £150 in recognition of the injustice caused to her. The Council agreed.

Summary: Ms A complains the Council has wrongly decided not to fully fund her s117 aftercare by refusing to pay for her accommodation. A challenge against the Council’s interpretation of the law is a matter for the courts and not the Ombudsman and so we will not pursue the complaint any further.

Summary: The complainant is concerned about the circumstances leading to the death of her grandmother in a Bupa Home. The Council, as safeguarding agency, investigated and identified some faults by Bupa. The Council recommended certain actions to improve future practice which Bupa accepted and acted upon. The Ombudsmen have now considered the complainant’s remaining concerns and have made additional recommendations for Bupa. The Ombudsmen have therefore completed their investigation and are closing the complaint.

Summary: Mrs X complains the organisations involved in this complaint did not do enough to diagnose her husband, Mr X’s brain tumour. She also says the Council did not offer enough support for Mr X’s social care needs. There is some evidence of fault in the actions of a matron employed by the Norfolk Trust as she failed to properly record how she assessed Mr X. However, this has not caused an injustice. There is no evidence of fault in the other parts of the complaint.

Summary: Miss X complains about the way the Council assessed her needs, failed to provided support, and failed to return her phone calls. The Ombudsman found the Council was not at fault.

Summary: Miss X complains about the quality of respite care the Council provided to the late Mrs Y. The Ombudsman found the Council was not at fault.

Summary: Miss X and Mrs Z complain about the way the Council dealt with top up fees for the late Mrs Y, and how it dealt with their complaints. The Ombudsman found the Council was not at fault in this. However, it was at fault when it sent invoices to the late Mr Y after his death, which caused distress. It will apologise and waive £150 of the outstanding fees.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council preventing contact with his son. The Ombudsman will not continue this investigation as the courts are considering matters related to Mr X’s complaint.

Summary: Mr A complains about the Council’s handling of works carried out to his property under a Disabled Facilities Grant. There is no evidence of fault by the Council and we will not pursue the complaint any further.