Summary: Mr B complains about the provision by the Council of adult social care services to his elderly parents, Mr and Mrs C and to his brother, Mr D. He further complains about the support to him as their carer. He says the failure by the Council to provide direct payments for him to provide care has meant that his family have not received the care they need. He says that he has not been able to work because of the amount of time he has spent providing care. There was fault by the Council in its communication with Mr B and in its complaint response and handling. The Council will, within a month of this decision, apologise for that. There was not fault in its decision that Mr B could not receive direct payments for providing care or in the overall approach it adopted to the provision of care and support for the family.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a care home where the complainant’s mother resided. This is because further investigation could not achieve a different outcome from that already achieved by the Council’s investigation.

Summary: There is no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision that Mr Y deliberately deprived himself of assets to avoid care charges when carrying out a financial assessment for him.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about the care service provided for his mother. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve more for Mr A and his mother by investigating this complaint.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in response to a safeguarding concern. This is because the complaint is made late and there is no good reason to investigate it now.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A’s complaint about the quality of the Council’s safeguarding enquiry into concerns about her mother’s Mrs B’s care. This is because it is unlikely he could add to the Council’s response or make a different finding of the kind Ms A wants.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an invoice from the care provider. This is because the care provider has cancelled the invoice and apologised for any distress caused. These are suitable remedies and investigation by the Ombudsman could not achieve anything more for Mr X.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to inform him and his wife of the charges for a respite stay and delayed putting support in place for her to return home. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation because the Council has agreed to take action to remedy the complaint.

Summary: The Ombudsman has not found fault in the way the social worker carried out a visit to Mr C or in the Council’s decision to stop direct payments while it carried out a safeguarding investigation. There was a delay in the Council’s decision to carry out a mental capacity assessment of Mr C, but the assessment of his capacity to make decisions about his care has been done.

Summary: Mrs B complains the care provider has increased charges for her father’s care in a nursing home. In particular she considers it is wrong the care provider has not reduced the charge by the NHS funded nursing care contribution. As a result she considers her father is paying more for his care than he should. There was fault in the wording of the contract between the care provider and Mrs B, in the communication with Mrs B and insufficient notice of fee increases. The care provider will apologise, review its contract and waive the fee increases until two months after the date of this statement.

Summary: Mr B complains about the care and support planning for his brother-in-law, Mr C, when he was discharged from a rehabilitation unit. There was delay by the Council in care and support planning for Mr C when he was to be discharged. There was a failure to tell Mr B about the costs of residential care. The Council is removing £445 of charges which is a satisfactory resolution. The Council will also apologise within one month of the date of this decision.

Summary: The Council has provided an explanation of how it could meet a person’s adult social care needs in their own home, including the needs arising from anxiety, in accordance with an earlier Ombudsman decision. I am satisfied this is a clear explanation, even though Mr C disagrees.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s charges for adult social care for her brother, Mr Y. She says he has suffered financial loss and she has suffered stress. The Ombudsman finds no fault causing significant injustice in the Council’s handling of adult social care charges.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council did not inform him it would backdate the charges for his care. This is because it is unlikely we would find the Council to be at fault so we would not be able to achieve the outcome Mr B is seeking.

Summary: The Council failed to carry out a review and revise Mr B’s care and support plan before it reduced his one to one support. The Council has agreed to carry out a thorough review and take action to prevent similar failings in future.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council delayed in providing him with a shower since April 2016 and failed to deal properly with his complaints about this. The Council accepts its records are poor and it delayed in responding to Mr X. However, the injustice caused to him has been remedied by the Council’s apology and the installation of a shower in September 2018.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to remove her adult disabled daughter Miss D’s day centre transport. The Council failed to properly apply its transport policy and to properly consider the impact on Miss D and Mrs X. The Council has agreed to reassess Miss D’s transport needs. Depending on the outcome of the review it has agreed to consider whether an additional remedy is appropriate.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council was failing to consider his mother’s best interests in keeping her in residential care. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. The Court of Protection is the body best placed to consider Mr X’s mother’s best interests.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint about care provided to her husband, Mr A. This is because Mr A now has a new care provider, and the Council says it will monitor his previous provider. It is unlikely the Ombudsman could achieve any more than this even if he investigated.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint about the care provided to her late husband, Mr B or the time it took the Council to investigate her complaints. This is because it is unlikely he could add to the Council’s response or make a finding of the kind Mrs A wants.

Summary: The Ombudsmen find fault in the way a Council conducted a safeguarding enquiry. As a result restrictions were put in place before proper consideration had been given to the person’s best interests. This, in turn, caused avoidable distress to her husband. The Council has agreed to action to learn from the case.

Summary: The Ombudsmen find fault in the way a Council conducted a safeguarding enquiry. As a result restrictions were put in place before proper consideration had been given to the person’s best interests. This, in turn, caused avoidable distress to her husband. The Council has agreed to action to learn from the case.

Summary: The Ombudsmen find fault in the way a Council conducted a safeguarding enquiry. As a result restrictions were put in place before proper consideration had been given to the person’s best interests. This, in turn, caused avoidable distress to her husband. The Council has agreed to action to learn from the case.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not properly consider his disabled son’s application for a blue badge. The Ombudsman has found no fault in the Council’s assessment of mobility and its decision to refuse a blue badge.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to grant him a Blue Badge parking permit. This is because the Council has followed government guidance in making its decision. Without evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision, we cannot criticise its merits.

Summary: Mrs D says the home failed to safeguard her father, Mr F, or to look after him when he fell ill, leading to his being hospitalised. The home was not at fault. It arranged for medical care for Mr F but his condition worsened nonetheless.

Summary: There is no fault by the Council in this complaint. Although the company Mrs X purchased two chairs from is a Council supported business, the Council is not responsible for the dispute between Mrs X and the business about the suitability of one of the chairs purchased. The business operates independently of the Council and Mrs X purchased the chairs privately. She was provided with a copy of the terms and conditions of sale. This makes clear the contractual agreement is between Mrs X and the business.

Summary: Ms B complains the Council has wrongly charged her brother, Mr X, for transport costs to his day care provider. As the Council is unable to provide evidence to support its position with regard to Mr X’s attendance at the centre, it has accepted our proposal to settle the complaint by reimbursing the transport costs Mr X has paid since 2013.

Summary: The Council invoiced Mr B for three computer sessions at a day centre which the day centre did not provide. The Council has agreed to remove its charges for these sessions, apologise and make a payment of £150 to Mr and Mrs B. The Council has also agreed to take action to prevent similar failings in future.

Summary: There is no evidence the Council was at fault in the way it placed another service user with Ms X in her supported living, or reduced Ms X’s care package as a result, or failed to consider the safeguarding alerts and Ms X’s family’s complaints properly. The care provider (acting on behalf of the Council) failed to follow its procedures on two occasions when Ms X was found with an injury. The Council agrees to apologise to Ms X, and make a payment in recognition that distress was caused to her family.

Summary: Mrs B complained the Council unreasonably treated her mother as having deprived herself of capital to gain Council funding for care. The Council failed to properly consider Mrs C’s circumstances. That meant the Council denied funding earlier than it should have and led to Mrs B having to go to time and trouble to pursue her complaint. The Council’s agreement to disregard 75% of the gifts made to family members along with an apology, payment to Mrs B and further guidance to officers is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A’s complaint about severe restrictions placed on her visits to her sister, Ms B, who lives in a nursing home. There is nothing further the Ombudsman can add to the Council’s complaint response which explains that as Ms B’s placement is now fully managed and funded by the NHS, the Council is not responsible for the restrictions. This is a complaint for the NHS to consider.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr A’s complaint about decisions taken by the Court of Protection regarding his mother. This is because any decision taken by a court is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.