Summary: The complaint is about Ms B’s care in a nursing home. There was fault in the nursing home’s care planning and record keeping, but we do not conclude this caused either of her falls or the infection following the first fall. The Council delayed in responding to the complaint and this is fault. The nursing home has already refunded notice payments which is a partial remedy. The Council accepts our recommendation to apologise for the delay in responding to the complaint and to visit the nursing home to check the care records of those residents it funds.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly assess her mobility for a blue badge. There is fault in both mobility assessments the Council conducted. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X for failing to conduct the assessments correctly, arrange a fresh assessment to be conducted in accordance with the relevant guidance and pay her £100 for her time and trouble spent on pursuing this complaint.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council stopped paying him direct payments to pay for a second room for a carer, and then delayed reconsidering this decision when he asked it to. The Council was at fault as it did not properly consider its decision to stop paying for the second room and it did not identify how else it would discharge its duty to meet Mr X’s eligible night time needs. It then took too long to reconsider its decision. Mr X paid rent himself for a second room to enable a carer to stay overnight. The Council has agreed to refund Mr X £2,280 for the costs of the second room for five and a half months, and to apologise.

Summary: Mr X says the Council is at fault in how it has assessed his son’s financial contribution towards his care costs. The Ombudsman found some fault by the Council in its handling of this matter. He recommended the Council act to help address the injustice caused to Mr X’s son and to resolve the matters which are outstanding. The Council agreed to do so.

Summary: The Council’s decision to cancel Direct Payments and transfer Mr B to managed care was without fault. This is because Mr B had used the payments to fund things that were not eligible at the time, as they were not in his care plan as care and support needs. Mr B has chosen to cancel his care and pay privately rather than accept the offer of managed care services.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide free transport when her son returned to college in September 2017, having turned 19 earlier that year. The Council accepts it was wrong to do this and will: apologise; refund the charges; and review its policy on transport for adult learners. It also needs to refund anyone else it has wrongly charged.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s safeguarding process. This is because we are unlikely to add anything more to the Council’s complaints response.

Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of Mr Y about incorrect invoices for Mr Y’s care, other aspects of Mr Y’s care, and failure to complete a carer’s assessment for Mr X. Mr X says the alleged failings have gone on “for years” and have caused pain and misery. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for not sending correct invoices for Mr Y’s care after an error was identified. The Council has agreed to send a revised invoice. The Ombudsman does not uphold the other parts of the complaint because there is no fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: Mr X, who complains on behalf of Mrs Y and Mrs Z, says the Council is at fault because it has concluded that Mrs Z intentionally deprived herself of assets to avoid paying her care costs. The Ombudsman has not found evidence of fault by the Council causing Mrs Y and Mrs Z an injustice and for this reason he has ended his investigation of this complaint.

Summary: There is no evidence of fault by Norfolk County Council in its handling of, and decisions related to, Mr Y’s move into a residential care home following admission to hospital in late 2017. Its handling of her complaint was poor however and the Council will take action to recognise the injustice this cause Ms X and ensure that its handling of future complaints is sufficiently thorough and timely.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to properly investigate her safeguarding concerns in relation to her father. Based on the information currently available, there was fault in the way the Council responded to Ms X and her family’s safeguard concerns. This fault has caused Ms X an injustice in the form of distress and anxiety, and has put her to unnecessary time and trouble.

Summary: Mrs X complains that the Care Provider did not respond appropriately when Mrs Y had a stroke. Mrs X says this delayed treatment and Mrs Y lost her ability to walk, her continence and her swallow as a result. The Ombudsman finds the Care Provider did not cause injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to consider discretionary funding to top up a Disabled Facilities Grant to adapt their house for his disabled son. Mr X states they have had to accept a reduced scheme which does not fully meet his son’s needs. Based on the information available there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with this application for a DFG.

Summary: The Ombudsmen find no fault in a mental health team’s decision to discharge a patient back to his GP. The patient remains entitled to section 117 aftercare.

Summary: The Ombudsmen find no fault in a mental health team’s decision to discharge a patient back to his GP. The patient remains entitled to section 117 aftercare.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council had failed to investigate her concerns about the risk of financial abuse for a neighbour. She said it failed to follow recognized financial procedures and policies in managing his finances and failed to investigate unprofessional behaviour and abuse towards her from a carer. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council which has caused injustice to Ms X.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the care provided to her late father Mr Y. The Care Provider has given an appropriate remedy for the complaint, agreed and received by Mrs X on behalf of Mr Y’s estate, which is in line with the remedy the Ombudsman would recommend. Investigation by the Ombudsman would achieve no further worthwhile outcome.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council would not investigate her complaint about her ex-tutors at a Recreation Centre. The Ombudsman should not investigate her complaint. This is because the complaint is late and there are not good enough reasons for the Ombudsman to exercise discretion to consider it.

Summary: Mrs X has complained about how the Council has dealt with her mother’s Deferred Payment Agreement. There is some evidence of fault by the Council but it has already provided a suitable remedy.

Summary: Ms B complains on behalf of her father, Mr X, that the Council failed to provide timely information about the cost of his care. As a result, she lost an early opportunity to reduce the costs by accepting less care or care from a cheaper provider. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice and which it has agreed to remedy by reimbursing half the care costs of the first six weeks of Mr X’s care.

Summary: Mrs Y complains about the Council’s actions in relation to a Disabled Facilities Grant provided for her disabled son, X. The Ombudsman finds the Council failed to advise and signpost Mrs Y at the beginning of the process, leaving Mrs Y to oversee the build. The Council then made the final payment to the contractors, despite receiving confirmation from Mrs Y that works remained outstanding. The fault has caused injustice to X because the accommodation does not fully meet his identified needs. The Council will update its written procedures, and pay £2,000 to X and £500 to Mrs Y for the injustice caused by the fault identified.

Summary: The Council was not at fault for refusing to install the bathroom adaptations Mrs X asked for. I have found no fault in how it made its decision, so I cannot question the decision itself. The Council was also not at fault for refusing to help Mrs X with a benefits appeal. However, it was at fault for delays in providing additional support to Mrs X for a large part of 2018. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make a payment of £300 to recognise her injustice.

Summary: Ms X says Caremark overcharged her for the care it provided and did not provide her with the care in the care plan. We did not find the care provider overcharged Ms X as she alleges. However, Caremark removed a care plan from Ms X’s possession without good reason and its response to her complaint did not meet the Care Quality Commission standard on receiving and acting on complaints. To remedy the injustice to Ms X, the Ombudsman recommends Caremark makes a time and trouble payment of £100 to Ms X.

Summary: Mr X complains about the care provider’s annual increase in care home fees for his mother Mrs Y and the impact on her. The Ombudsman has found no evidence the care provider’s actions have caused an injustice to Mrs Y so is intending to complete his investigation.

Summary: Mrs B complained about the care provided to her late husband in a care home before he died. I cannot find fault that affected the care given. But important records are missing and the Care Provider has agreed to provide evidence that improvements to its procedures are being implemented.

Summary: There was minor fault by the Care Provider, in its management of a domiciliary care package. But this fault did not cause injustice, and so the Ombudsman has completed his investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s late complaint about the Council’s assessment in 2017 that he did not meet the criteria for care. This is because Mr A could have complained sooner if he was unhappy with the 2017 assessment. There is no good reason for the Ombudsman to disapply the law to investigate this matter now.

Summary: The Ombudsmen will not investigate Ms K’s complaint that her mother’s aftercare was removed. The complaint is made to us late and there are no good reasons to investigate now.

Summary: The Council was at fault because it failed to arrange an urgent review of Mrs A’s care needs on her husband’s request. The Council’s complaint response was inadequate because it did not identify the failure to offer an urgent review and incorrectly said Mrs A had a urine infection. The Council has already waived charges and this is a partial remedy for Mr A’s avoidable distress. It will also apologise to Mr A for the fault identified in this statement.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A’s complaint about poor care provided to her father, Mr B. This is because it is unlikely any further investigation will be able to add to the Council’s response.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s late complaint about care provided to his late mother-in-law, Mrs B, by her care provider. This is because Mr A could have complained sooner if he was concerned about the care Mrs B received in 2015. There is no good reason to exercise the Ombudsman’s discretion to investigate this late complaint now and it is unlikely he could add to the care provider’s response or make a finding of the kind Mr A wants.

Summary: Mr X’s parents complain on his behalf that the Council did not act in his best interests when his social worker failed to find him alternative accommodation in the community. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr X.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about the independence of the Council. This is because Mr A’s complaints about impartiality have not caused him a significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation. The matter Mr A is complaining about affects most people in the area. The Ombudsman cannot investigate matters affecting all or most people.

Summary: Ms D complained the Council failed to properly assess her mother’s care and support needs. There is no fault in the way the Council carried out the assessment.

Summary: Ms B complains the Council failed to arrange her package of care despite completing its assessment of her more than 20 months earlier. She also complains the care package offered did not meet her needs, the Council failed to return her calls, and it did not handle her complaint properly. The Ombudsman has found the Council was at fault for failing to meet Ms B’s eligible care needs and taking 16 months to arrange a care package. We have also found it was at fault for not carrying out an annual review of her care and support plan and for the way it handled her complaint. These actions caused her distress and she incurred avoidable time and trouble when she made her complaint. Therefore, the Council has agreed to make financial payments to her to recognise this injustice.

Summary: Mr W complains the Council has failed to assess Ms X’s needs properly since February 2017, leaving her without the care she needs. The Council has not done a full functional assessment. This leaves some doubt over whether it has assessed her needs properly. The Council therefore needs to offer Ms X a functional assessment.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council unfairly refused her permission to use her mother’s direct payments on self-employed carers. The Council gave Mrs X incorrect advice about what type of exceptions it could consider under its direct payment policy. It has agreed to apologise, invite Mrs X to make an application for consideration against its exception policy and consider her request, having regard to Mrs X’s assessed care needs and any other relevant circumstances. It has agreed to revise its application form and guidance so it is appropriate to consider exercise of discretion for any use of direct payments.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council carried out an inadequate assessment of her mother, Mrs Y’s, mental capacity. The Council is not at fault. It assessed Mrs Y in line with the Care Act, the Mental Capacity Act, and its own policy. There was no fault in the way the Council decided Mrs Y had the capacity to decide not to move into a care home, and instead it arranged a package of support to meet her needs at home. It was at fault when it failed to clearly explain the next steps and that a further assessment would be carried out. It has already apologised for this which was an appropriate remedy

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the service offered by a care provider. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice, and it is unlikely that an investigation would achieve a meaningful outcome.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not exercise its discretion to investigate Mr X’s late complaint about the quality of residential care his wife received and other related matters.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council has refused to investigate her complaint about the failure to give her adequate information before placing her mother, Ms Y, in a care home. Ms X waited approximately 18 months to complain to the Council. The Ombudsmen will not investigate this complaint as it is unlikely they would find fault with the Council’s decision not to investigate.