Summary: The Ombudsmen found fault with the way in which Mr C’s care coordinators responded when he told them that he would like to get onto the Council’s social housing list. The Mental Health Trust has agreed to provide an apology to Mr C.
Summary: Miss D complains about a council taking too long to assess her for a direct payment. I am satisfied the 3 months taken to complete the social care assessment was acceptable in this case, given Miss D’s own circumstances and health problems. The Council went on to calculate Miss D’s contribution which exceeded the direct payment she was eligible for. I am satisfied the Council considered her disability and other expenses appropriately in line with the Care and Support Statutory Guidance. So I do not uphold this complaint.
Summary: There was fault in the way Midlands Home Care Ltd provided home care to Ms C. The carers rarely arrived on their time and did not provide the support specified in her care plan. As a result, Ms C’s nutritional and hygiene needs were often not met. The Ombudsman has recommended the Agency apologises to Ms C and provides a financial remedy.
Summary: The Council took far too long to complete adaptations to Miss T’s home. It has sought to blame Miss T rather than accept responsibility for its own failings. It needs to apologise to Miss T and pay her £750.
Mrs X complains Beechwood Lodge care home banned her from visiting her mother, Mrs Y, because she complained about the quality of care provided to Mrs Y. Mrs X says the care home made false allegations about her conduct at the care home.
Mrs X complains a safeguarding investigation undertaken by the Council about the above matters were not dealt with in a timely manner.
Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to provide him with enough support when he moved out of its area. The failure to do this left him with debts for his housing. The Council needs to: apologise; pay the outstanding debt for rent on his previous property; pay financial redress for distress; and identify the action to take to prevent similar problems from happening again.
Summary: Mr X complains about the poor service given to his mother during her residence at the care home for a five-week period. The care home upheld Mr X’s complaints and apologised for its failings. We recommended the care home should pay £300 to Mr X’s mother to reflect the injustice she suffered because of its poor service.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint that the Council wrongly refused him a Blue Badge. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an investigation.
Summary: Miss X complains the Council has failed to investigate her safeguarding concerns or implement a safeguarding plan to ensure her mother’s safety when on her own at home, or when leaving the home. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council has considered Miss X’s safeguarding reports or requests for support for Mrs Y.
Summary: The Council was not at fault when it completed Mrs X’s social care review. But it should have given Mrs X the option to continue to co-ordinate her care package on her behalf which may not have resulted in an increase in care fees. The Council has now agreed to review Mrs X’s care package and fees.
Summary: Mrs Y complains the provider, Select Primecare Limited, failed to provide her mother, Mrs X, with suitable care resulting in a fall. The care provider assessed Mrs X’s needs and put in place a suitable care plan to meet those needs. There is no evidence Mrs X fell because of poor care. The provider is not at fault.
Summary: The Council is not at fault in the way it assessed Mr X’s application for a blue badge. It considered all relevant information and applied the relevant guidance correctly.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s late complaints about the care her mother Mrs B received in 2015 and 2016. This is because Mrs A could have complained sooner and there is no good reason for him to exercise his discretion to investigate this late complaint now. The Court of Protection made the decision where Mrs B should live. The Ombudsman cannot investigate court matters.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council wrongly failed to exercise its discretion and disregard his parents’ property when assessing their financial contribution towards their care. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would find fault.
Summary: Two sisters complain about the Council’s failure to learn the lessons from a previous complaint when dealing with a safeguarding alert in 2014 and 2015. The Council did not deal properly with safeguarding concerns raised in December 2014. However, this did not cause injustice to Ms X which requires a remedy.
Summary: There was some fault in the way the Council responded to queries about invoices for care and support and delay in its handling of the subsequent complaint. There was no fault in the way the Council charged for care costs. The Council will apologise and make a time and trouble payment of £200, as well as providing further guidance for its staff.
Summary: Mr X complains about a care home’s decision to bar him from its premises with the result that he could not visit his father at the home. The care home did not conduct a risk assessment before placing a ban on Mr X. The home should remedy the injustice to Mr X through an apology and a modest sum of compensation.
Summary: The Council failed to respond to Mr X’s reports of poor quality care provided to his mother-in-law (Mrs Y) at a residential care home. It also failed to review Mrs X’s care throughout the period she lived at the care home. This caused avoidable distress to Mrs Y and Mr X.
Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council investigated Mr X’s complaints about its actions towards him as a care leaver. There is some evidence of fault which caused him injustice in the upheld complaint that he was homeless for a very short time. The Council offers a small payment in acknowledgement of the distress caused.
Summary: The complaint is about the Council placing Ms A’s mother Ms B in a care home against her will and charging her for the placement in 2015. I have stopped investgiating the complaint because it is late and premature.
Summary: Mr Y complains the Council and Trust failed to assess his needs and the Trust discharged him from its service. The Ombudsmen find the Trust failed to properly record and communicate the discharge decision. However, this has not caused an injustice and the Trust has apologised for its failure to communicate. The Council delayed in assessing Mr Y’s care needs. This has caused Mr Y an injustice which the Council will remedy.
Summary: Ind C complained about the way in which the Council’s Complex Care Team dealt with their request for care support. The Ombudsman did not find fault in the way the Council (this team) dealt with Ind C’s assessment.
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council did not properly consider her application for a blue badge. We have found no fault in the Council’s assessment of Mrs X’s mobility and its decision to refuse a blue badge.
Summary: The Council was wrong to introduce Assistive Technology to X’s supported living arrangements without taking into account his parents’ and carers’ view of his ability to cope, as well as its own assessment of his needs. Following a six-week review, the Council withdrew the AT. However, there is no doubt that in the meantime X was caused some significant distress and the Council now recognises that, will apologise to X and his family and offer a sum to acknowledge the distress caused. The complaint is upheld.
Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain the Council carried out a flawed assessment of needs before they moved to extra care accommodation and failed to tell them how much it would cost for eight months. This caused them distress and unnecessary removal costs. The Council will apologise, waive the care charges and pay Mr and Mrs X £1147.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about the Council’s failure to safeguard his grandmother, Mrs B. This is because Mr A does not have consent from Mrs B to complain on her behalf.
Summary: Ms X complains the Council has failed to deal properly with her care needs, leaving her with no care at all. Despite identifying eligible care needs the Council has not produced a care and support plan explaining how it will meet them. Ms X has therefore been left without any care for up to two years. The Council needs to reassess Ms X, produce a care and support plan on meeting her eligible needs and improve its working practices.
Summary: we will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the care rates the Council pays service providers. Mr X may go to court to challenge the Council’s care rates.
Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Mr J’s complaint about the Council’s response to his request for an assessment of his care and support needs. This is because we cannot say what the injustice would be, until the assessment is complete.
Summary: The Council failed properly to assess Mr X’s care needs and paid him too little in direct payments. It also caused Mr X distress in long, inappropriate telephone calls and delayed dealing with a complaint about this. It did not offer Mrs X, his main carer, a carer’s assessment. The Council will apologise to Mr X, backdate increased direct payments, carry out a review of Mr X’s needs and pay him £1,000 for his time, trouble and distress. It will also offer Mrs X a carer’s assessment.
Summary: There is evidence that some of the care provided to the late Mr Y was below an acceptable standard. I am satisfied the Care Provider is taking adequate steps to address its failings. I do not consider Mr Y suffered a quantifiable loss which merits a payment to his estate. I do recommend a payment is made to Mr Y’s representative in recognition of the time trouble and distress caused by the events.
Summary: Mrs X complains about misleading information given by a care home about its fees for her father-in-law Mr Y. We have decided the care home gave Mr Y misleading information about its fees in December 2016. This led to a short period of uncertainty about the level of fees before it clarified the position. The care home should apologise for this and review its procedure to ensure that clear information is provided in future.
Summary: Mr and Mrs F complain on behalf of Mr M that the Council failed to provide him with care and support. The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation. This is because the events happened more than 12 months ago and no worthwhile outcome could be achieved as Mr M has now died.
Summary: Mr B complains the Council has failed to deal properly with his niece’s finances, leaving her with debts and no support for several weeks. I have discontinued our investigation so the Council has another opportunity to investigate and respond to the complaint.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint about the actions of her late step father’s, Mr B’s, care provider. This is because it is unlikely he could add to the care provider’s response or make a different finding of the kind Mrs A wants even if he investigated.
Summary: The Council delayed completing capacity assessments for a vulnerable adult about their social care. The Council failed to keep the daughter informed at certain stages. The various bodies involved did not co-ordinate well in the best interests of the service user. This led to increased upset for the service user’s daughter.
Summary: CL Lifestyles Ltd failed to always advise in advance of changes to care staff, this caused distress. It also meant the service user had care delivered from someone she was not comfortable with. Administrative errors meant that some care support was missed. The service user died so her distress cannot be remedied. The Care Provider should apologise to her son and pay £200 in recognition of his upset, time and trouble.
Summary: Ms V and Mr W complain about how the Council dealt with their application for a disabled facilities grant, including delay and not meeting all Ms V needs to maximise her independence. The Ombudsman’s decision is there is some evidence of fault in the way Council officers explained the process to them and some avoidable delay. But we cannot uphold the complaint about what the Council agreed to provide.
Summary: Ms X says the Council is at fault for taking too long to determine his Disabled Facilities Grant application. The Ombudsman has found evidence of fault by the Council in the matter he has investigated and he recommends the Council pay him £350 in recognition of inconvenience and time and trouble caused to him. It agreed to do so.
Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about their daughter Miss X’s private care provision by Nexus Support Ltd., and how they withdrew from providing that care. There was no fault by the provider in the way they gave notice to Mr and Mrs X. It was not fault for the provider’s staff to lock Miss X’s upstairs bathroom. There is insufficient evidence to make a finding on the installation of a screen in Miss X’s car between the rear passenger seats and front seats. This lack of evidence itself is fault, but it did not cause a significant injustice.
Summary: The Ombudsmen have found fault in the way section 117 aftercare services and interrelated adult social care services were arranged for a young adult, which caused her and her mother injustice. The Council has agreed to take steps to put things right.
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.
