Summary: The Ombudsmen found no fault by a Council, a Hospital Trust and a Mental Health Trust about health care and social care support they provided following an individual’s hospital admissions in 2016. The Ombudsmen found the organisations accepted the individual’s right as someone with mental capacity to refuse support. The Ombudsmen also found no fault by the Hospital Trust in relation to medication he was sent home with on discharge from hospital.
Summary: Mr X complains the Council has overcharged his Aunt, Miss Y, for care, causing financial loss. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault. We recommend the Council provides an apology; pays an amount for time and trouble and take steps to prevent recurrence.
Summary: Ms X complains that her mother, Mrs Y, should not pay a contribution towards the day centre she has attended for many years. She says she did not agree to this. The Ombudsman finds no fault with the Council’s actions.
Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to reduce the support it offered to Miss Y, and its communication with them. They say this had a significant negative impact on her quality of life and her needs are not now being met. The Ombudsman found no fault in the Council’s actions.
Summary: Mr V complains MPS (Investments) Limited and its Longton Nursing & Residential Home did not meet his wife’s care needs properly in the short time she spent there. The Home’s records are incomplete and it failed to identify the existence of a Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation decision. This may have avoided Mrs V’s admission to hospital. MPS (Investments) Ltd needs to apologise, pay financial redress and improve its working practices.
Summary: Mr X has complained about the Council’s assessment of his father’s needs and its decision not to backdate care payments to May 2017. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.
Summary: The complaint will be discontinued. Mrs X complains the Council failed to properly assess her mother’s capacity to make a decision about going into residential care. Mrs X’s mother is now in permanent residential care.
Summary: Mrs B’s representative complains the Council has wrongly assessed her as being self-funding and charged care costs longer than it should have done. Mrs B’s representative complains the Council have wrongly applied the diminishing notional capital rules and have not considered her outstanding debts. The Ombudsman has not found fault.
Summary: Mrs X complained to the Council the respite care provided to her mother in a care home was unsatisfactory. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has investigated her complaint and it is unlikely further investigation by us will lead to a different result.
Summary: there was fault in the way the Council carried out a review of Mr F’s Care and Support Plan because it did not support him to be involved in the process and it did not clearly explain the reasons for some proposed changes when it met Mr X, who is his father and carer. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr F and offer him the opportunity to have an independent advocate if he wishes.
Summary: Mr F complains the Council wrongly calculated his father’s contributions to his residential care fees and wrongly charged the family top-up fees. The Ombudsman has found no fault in the calculation of the contributions, but there was fault in the charging of the top-up fee. The Council has agreed to refund these.
Summary: Mrs B complained the Council calculated the amount she would need to pay to top up a disabled facilities grant was more than she could afford, leaving her without facilities she needs. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the Council’s actions. This is because while the law gives the Council a power to meet a shortfall in such circumstances, it does not impose on it a duty to do so.
Summary: it was not fault for the Council to reclaim money Mr & Mrs X spent from a Direct Payment account to pay for goods and services that were not included in their Carers’ Support Plans.
Summary: The Council was at fault in the way it recorded the outcome of an assessment for a Blue Badge for Mrs X. It has agreed to issue a Blue Badge in recognition of the error.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the management of the complainant’s direct payments. This is because we could not add to the Council’s previous investigation or achieve the outcomes that the complainant is looking for.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about the Council’s responsibilities to object to decisions made by the NHS about his mother’s, Mrs B’s, Continuing Health Care (CHC) application. This is because he could not add to the Council’s response, and, any injustice to Mrs B is because of the NHS’s decision to refuse funding. These are not matters the Ombudsman can consider.
Summary: The complainant says the Council failed to properly manage her sister’s care and support in a residential home and to deal properly with safeguarding complaints. The Council says it has followed the correct procedures, considered all concerns and is satisfied the resident is receiving suitable care. The Ombudsman finds the Council acted without fault in responding to complaints about the care services offered but that a fault occurred in not telling relatives about a resident’s fall and procedures changed to prevent that happening again.
Summary: There was fault with the way Newfield Lodge Care Home responded to Mrs C’s falls in June 2018. The correct procedures were not followed and medical attention was not sought. The Home also failed to properly respond to previous falls and, as a result, Mrs C’s falls prevention plan was not up to date. The Ombudsman recommends that the Home apologises to Mrs C’s son and pays him £1000 for the distress this has caused.
Summary: Mrs B complains the Council failed to provide her son with a personal budget which is enough to meet his eligible care needs, resulting in him being without care. The son’s personal budget was not enough to buy his care, leaving him without formal care for nine months. This caused injustice to him and his parents. The Council needs to apologise, pay financial redress and take action to prevent similar problems from happening.
Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not properly assess his parents’ care needs and provide the needed package of care. The Council is not at fault.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about the Care Provider’s response to his request for a copy of his deceased mother’s care records. The complaint lies outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because it is late. Also, as it is a complaint about freedom of information, it is a matter best considered by the Information Commissioner.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to investigate the concerns he raised about his wife’s, Mrs B’s, health funded care, under its responsibility as lead safeguarding authority. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault causing a significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A’s late complaints about lack of care provided to her deceased mother, Mrs B. This is because Ms A could have complained to the Ombudsman sooner and it is unlikely any further investigation by the Ombudsman could add to the Council’s response. There is no good reason to disapply the law now.
Summary: The Council is at fault as it did not properly inform Mrs X of the increase to the hourly rate of her care costs and it wrongly charged Mrs X for the costs of care calls which she had cancelled and sent debt enforcement letters to her. As a result Mrs X was put to avoidable time and trouble and caused distress. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice to Mrs X by apologising and making a payment of £150 to her. The Council will also review its care charging procedures.
Summary: The Council is at fault as it wrongly expected Mr X to negotiate with a care provider regarding the top up fee he pays for Mrs Y’s care. The Council is also at fault as the top up fee agreement for Mrs Y’s care does not comply with the Care and Support Statutory Guidance and it failed to respond to Mr X’s correspondence asking for help with the care provider’s intention to increase Mrs Y’s care fees. The Council has agreed to remedy the uncertainty caused to him and review Mr X’s top up arrangement to ensure it complies the statutory guidance.
Summary: Solicitors acting for Mrs B complain the Council should have financially assessed and/or funded her son’s residential care when he lived in its area between 2013 and 2017. We do not uphold the substantive complaint, finding no fault in the Council’s actions at the time. However, we do find fault in the Council’s delay replying to correspondence and in its handling of the complaint. This put Mrs B to unnecessary time and trouble. The Council agrees to apologise and pay £100 in recognition of this injustice.
Summary: Mr & Mrs X complain the Council has failed to refund the assessed contribution their son has paid towards the cost of his care. Although the Council did not do this, it has now provided information to explain why that was the case (i.e. he owes money for respite care which exceeds what he paid for care in his own home). However, the Council’s new consolidated invoice does not take account of the payments the son has made. It needs to correct this.
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council is wrong to expect her to pay her late mother-in-law’s care fees because she signed a deed of guarantee in 2011. The Council has agreed to reconsider the matter, if Mrs X provides evidence in support of her claim that her husband, who has also now died, inherited money from his mother which he spent before he died. We have therefore discontinued our investigation.
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of her father that led to him living in residential care rather than in his own home. We are unlikely to add to the Council’s investigation. Nor is it likely that further investigation could lead to a different outcome.
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s assessment of her needs for care and support and its failure to put any support in place. The Council failed to keep promises about contacting Mr X’s family and overlooked some of the family’s correspondence. The Council had apologised for these failures. The Ombudsman did not find these failures caused Mr X to be without care and support for his assessed needs.
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s assessment of his needs for care and support and its failure to put any support in place. The Council failed to keep promises about contacting Mr X’s family and overlooked some of the family’s correspondence. The Council had apologised for these failures. The Ombudsman did not find these failures caused Mr X to be without care and support for his assessed needs.
Summary: Mr B complains that the Council failed to provide him with adequate support and the carer’s’ assessment it completed for his mother was late and inadequate. He also says the Council failed to properly assess his needs and provide a service to meet his eligible needs. The Ombudsman finds the Council delayed in completing a carer’s assessment and, when the assessment was done, it was not as comprehensive as it should have been. There was also fault in that officers who assessed Mr B’s needs did not have autism training or previous experience of working with adults with autism and did not consult anyone with such experience. The Ombudsman has recommended a remedy for the injustice suffered by Mr B.
Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of his father, Mr Z, that his carers did not administer his medication during an evening visit in June 2018. The Ombudsman decided, on the balance of probabilities, to uphold Mr X’s complaint without speculating how it came to happen. The Care Provider has agreed to apologise to Mr X.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint about the actions of the Council regarding her husband’s, Mr B’s assessment. This is because it is unlikely he would find evidence of fault causing a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation and could not provide Mrs A with the outcome she wants.
Summary: Mrs C complains the Care Provider did not offset funded nursing care payments against fees paid by her late father for his care. We have upheld this complaint finding fault with the Care Provider’s terms and conditions which implied this would be the case. We also find poor practice in how it responded to Mrs C’s enquiries and complaint. These faults caused injustice to Mrs C. The Care Provider has agreed action to remedy Ms C’s complaint and learn lessons from the complaint.
Summary: Mrs B says the Council does not provide adequate support to her disabled husband so he can access the community and pursue activities such as fishing. She says the Council is not flexible enough in its approval of direct payments. The Ombudsman has found fault in the way the Council refused to pay for the equipment to enable Mr B to go fishing and in the lack of clarity in documents. The Ombudsman recommends that the Council pays for the fishing equipment and provides more detail in the documents.
Summary: Mrs X complains on behalf of her late father, Mr Y, about the standard of care provided during a two week respite stay. The care provider failed to ensure it gave all prescribed medication to Mr Y and failed to properly clean his room on one occasion. The care provider has apologised for its failings and we have made recommendations to ensure similar problems do not occur.
Summary: Mr and Mrs Y complain the care provider failed to take appropriate action when their mother, Mrs X, fell and injured herself in the presence of a member of care staff. The Ombudsman finds the care provider failed to contact a family member after it had decided it was necessary to do so. The care provider has agreed to undertake the Ombudsman’s recommendations to remedy the injustice caused by its actions.
Summary: Mr X complained about the lack of appropriate care given to his mother, Mrs Y at a care home arranged by the Council. There was no fault by the care home or Council in care provided. However the care home did not keep adequate records of the concerns Mr X raised during Mrs Y’s stay. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X for this fault and require it to improve record keeping. The Council was not able to share important evidence of its investigation with the Ombudsman. It has agreed to remind officers conducting interviews to share them with the complaints team.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A’s complaint about care provided to her father, Mr C. This is because the Council has apologised for the distress caused and explained it will implement additional training and monitoring for the carer involved. The Ombudsman is satisfied this remedies the injustice caused.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about his mother’s, Mrs B’s, care provider charging her for poor care and for care she did not receive. This is because Mrs B’s care provider has agreed to cancel the outstanding debt so there is no unremedied injustice for the Ombudsman to investigate.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about the Council’s decision to investigate a safeguarding allegation it received. This is because it is unlikely the Ombudsman would find evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council warranting investigation.
Summary: Mrs B complains about the services provided by Yorkshire Care and Support Services, YCSS, to her mother, Mrs C. She further complains about the way YCSS responded to her complaints. There was fault by YCSS in failing to respond to the complaint by Mrs B about the tablet dispenser. There was no fault in the care provided to Mrs C.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s late complaint about care her late mother received between 2013 and 2014. This is because there are no good reasons to for the Ombudsman to disapply the law to investigate now.
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.
