Summary: Ms F complains about the Council’s decision she is not eligible for support as her son’s carer, and that he has not received any care and support since December 2017. The Ombudsman has found no fault in the way the Council decided Ms F was not eligible or in the support provided to her son. The Council delayed completing the carer’s assessment, but this did not cause injustice to Ms F.

Summary: Mrs B complains the Council stopped providing financial help for her disabled daughter to attend a social group. The Ombudsman finds no fault by the Council, which properly reached its decision based on an assessment of need carried out under the Care Act 2014.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about being given only four days’ notice of the care provider’s decision to stop providing his domiciliary care package. This is because the matter complained about did not cause Mr A a significant personal injustice and it is unlikely an investigation would add to the response already provided by the Council’s investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue him with a disabled person’s bus pass. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s delay in dealing with equipment for Mr X, provision of information and complaint handling. The Ombudsman finds the Council failed to record its occupational therapy assessment sufficiently to evidence the outcomes. It also failed to provide adequate information and delayed responding to Mrs X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise, review training for staff and ensure OT assessments are properly recorded.

Summary: There was fault in the way the Council made decisions about Mr N’s and Mr O’s future respite care. This caused them and their mother Ms M avoidable uncertainty and distress. To remedy the injustice the Council has agreed to apologise, carry out further reviews and a mental capacity assessment and make a payment to reflect the loss of respite care during the period of closure. This action is an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: There was fault in the way the Council made decisions about Mr H’s future respite care. This caused avoidable uncertainty and distress. To remedy the injustice the Council has agreed to apologise, carry out further reviews and a mental capacity assessment and make a payment to reflect avoidable distress and uncertainty. This action is an appropriate remedy for the injustice.

Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s financial assessment of a contribution towards care charges.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s safeguarding investigation following respite care her husband received. The Council was at fault when it recorded an inconclusive decision based on criteria which is not in line with the law, guidance or its own policy, and did not reflect the findings of its investigation. This caused distress for Mrs X. The Council is in the process of reviewing its policy and procedures to make them compliant with the Care Act. There were also delays in the Council’s investigation, although these did not cause a personal injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a new decision, considering removal of the inconclusive decision. It has also agreed to issue a staff reminder and analyse safeguarding timescales to assess whether the same faults have impacted on others.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council is unfairly asking her to pay backdated charges for her care. I will discontinue the investigation so the Council can consider an appeal about this matter.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about an application for a Blue Badge because it is unlikely he would find fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate AB’s complaint that the Council failed to build a home extension for his mother, Mrs C, and stopped providing care services in June 2018 without notice. This is because AB has not provided evidence he has registered a Lasting Power of Attorney or Enduring Power of Attorney with the Office of the Public Guardian, it would be inappropriate for us to consider a complaint from AB on his mother’s behalf if there are ongoing court proceedings regarding her mental capacity and the Council has told us it has evidence to show it has not stopped the provision of care services to Mrs C.

Summary: I consider Cornwall Council (the Council) was at fault when it sent contradictory information to Mr X saying it would not issue an education, health and care (EHC) plan for Miss Y, and then saying it would issue one. Due to Miss Y’s age, Mr X has lost the opportunity to appeal the Council’s decision. Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) delayed carrying out blood tests and an ECG. This caused uncertainty to Mr X. Also, the Trust used the wrong sized feeding tube for Miss Y. This caused pain to Miss Y and distress to Mr X. Smile Together Dental CIC (the Dental Service) did not provide Miss Y with an appointment since September 2016. This caused frustration to Mr X. Also, the Council and Kernow Clinical Commissioning Group (the CCG) delayed providing responses to Mr X’s complaints, and did not keep him updated during the complaint handling process. This compounded the distress he had already suffered. The Ombudsmen made recommendations to remedy the injustices.

Summary: The Ombudsmen find no fault in the way organisations supported a man entitled to section 117 aftercare. There is evidence that suitable professionals have kept them man’s support under review and appropriately involved him in the care planning process.

Summary: Ms X says the Council unreasonably refused to reimburse payments she made to her daughter for care services provided by her daughter. There was unreasonable delay by the Council in conducting an annual review of Ms X’s care needs. The Council agreed to a financial remedy to reflect the uncertainty about the outcome caused the Council’s failing.

Summary: Ms C complains that the Council failed to provide advice about charges when her mother, Mrs D, was placed in a nursing home so, when Mrs D died, the family received an unexpected bill. She also says Mrs D did not need a nursing home and so incurred unnecessary costs. The Ombudsman finds there is no evidence the Council advised Ms C about charges until six months after Mrs D was placed in the home. The Council has agreed to waive the amount it paid for Mrs D’s care for that period. The Ombudsman finds no grounds to question the decision to place Mrs D in a nursing home but the Council should have reviewed the placement sooner.

Summary: Council faults in the way it investigated a safeguarding matter caused Mrs X significant personal injustice. The Ombudsman recommends a remedy for the injustice caused, and to improve the Council’s processes.

Summary: The Council should have ensured the action plan which it agreed with the care provider Springfield (acting on its behalf) was followed. The Council will now apologise to Mrs A for the anxiety caused by its failure to ensure the care plan was delivered, and offer a sum to recognise her distress.

Summary: There was fault in the way the Council made decisions about Mr J’s future respite care. This caused avoidable uncertainty and distress. To remedy the injustice the Council has agreed to apologise, carry out further reviews and a mental capacity assessment and make a payment to reflect avoidable distress and uncertainty. This action is an appropriate remedy for the injustice.

Summary: The care provider complied with the terms of its contract in the reimbursement of Funded Nursing Care (FNC) payments once Mr X was deemed to be eligible.

Summary: Miss W complains the Council failed to tell her about the charges for her residential care in April 2018 and delayed in arranging care so she could return home. The Council accepts it did not tell Miss W about the charges and delayed in assessing her needs so she could return home. This resulted in charges of over £3,800 which the Council has now offered to waive.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to deal properly with complaints about his mother’s care. The Council has accepted some fault and apologised. There is no evidence of injustice to warrant any other remedy.

Summary: Mrs W complains Orchard Manor View did not meet her husband’s care needs while he was there for respite care. Orchard Manor View did not shave Mr W properly, leaving him unkept when he left. Orchard Manor View needs to apologise to Mrs W for this lapse in her husband’s care.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint on behalf of her son that the Council stopped his care funding without any notice or communication and failed to respond to her complaint or provide an explanation. This is because the Council has upheld Mrs B’s complaint and it is unlikely we could add significantly to the Council’s investigation or that an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Dr C complained that the Council failed to properly carry out an assessment of her needs. She says that because of this she was discharged from hospital without care. Based on the evidence seen, there has been no fault by the Council.

Summary: It was not fault for the care provider to require payments which are overdue. The actions of the care provider have not caused injustice to Mrs P.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s delay authorising a budget increase, and its handling of his complaint. He says it had a devastating effect and he could not pay his PA for the extra hours. The Ombudsman finds the Council delayed authorising ten hours of support for over two years, and did not deal with Mr X’s complaint adequately. The Council has agreed to backdate the budget, reassess Mr X, and pay him £150 for his time and trouble. It will pay the PA £300 in recognition of the extended time he provided unpaid support, and review its processes to avoid similar problems in future.

Summary: There is no evidence the Council was at fault in the assessment or appeal for a Blue Badge for Mrs X.

Summary: Ms Y complained for Mrs X about the care the Council provided for her mother and father. 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 Y complained for her son the Council had failed to take account of his disability related expenses when calculating his financial contribution to his day care charges. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely an investigation would find fault or add anything to the Council’s own investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained about the actions of the Council which he says delayed him submitting a disabled facilities grant application. Mr X says this caused him and his family unnecessary distress and affected his health. There were delays in the process but these were not as a result of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to end his home care support, a missed care call and having to wait too long for an advocate. The Ombudsman has found no fault with what the Council has done. In addition, the Council has continued to offer Mr X an assessment of his care and support needs.

Summary: Ms X complains about the quality of domiciliary care provided to her late mother. The Council did not ensure the care agency addressed Ms X’s concerns properly. Consequently, the problems continued which meant that Mrs Y did not receive the service to which she was entitled.

Summary: There is no fault by the Council in this complaint. The Council did not know of Mr X’s existence until 2017, so it could not have consulted him sooner on decisions about his late mother’s care.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s management of the process to provide an Appointee for the complainant’s daughter. This is because we could not add anything to the Council’s previous investigation or provide an additional outcome.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A’s complaint about services she received from her previous care provider. This is because it is unlikely the Ombudsman could add to the care provider’s response or make a different finding even if he investigated.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that important items belonging to the complainant were lost by Council officers. This is because it is unlikely the Ombudsman could add to the Council’s response.

Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint about events at Mr K’s residential placement. Events happened too long ago for us to investigate them fairly, and it is unlikely investigation by us would lead to a different outcome.