Summary: The Ombudsmen found fault by a Council and a CCG with the way it assessed someone’s care needs and entitlement to Continuing Healthcare funding. The organisations have already acknowledged these faults, but the Ombudsmen recommended actions to remedy the outstanding injustices to the complainant, which the organisations have accepted. The Ombudsmen found no fault with a care home’s decision to seek advice from other organisations or with the medication given while providing care for a resident.

Summary: There was fault in the way the Council made decisions about Ms L’s future respite care. This caused Ms K and Ms L 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 closure.

Summary: Ms C complained about the care her mother received at her care home, during the last few weeks of her life. The Ombudsman found there was some fault with the care Ms C’s mother received, for which the Council has agreed to apologise.

Summary: Mrs B complains about the Council’s provision of a wheelchair ramp for her husband’s use and about its lack of apology for the fault it found in the actions of one of its officers. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because while the Council’s response could helpfully have included a formal apology, its response represented a reasonable and proportionate outcome for the complaint.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to provide him and his daughter with the support they need. Although the Council failed to arrange additional support after Mr X turned it down in March 2018, this did not cause injustice which warrants a remedy.

Summary: There was fault in the way the Council made decisions about Ms Q’s future respite care. This caused Ms Q and her mother Mrs P avoidable uncertainty and distress. To remedy the injustice the Council has agreed to apologise, carry out further reviews and a mental capacity assessment, appoint an advocate 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: Mr X complained about the Council’s delay carrying out a carer’s assessment for him. He also complained the Council failed to tell him the outcome of the assessment once it was carried out. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault and this caused Mr X uncertainty and frustration over whether he had missed out on potential support. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Mr X £100.

Summary: Mrs C complains the Council treated a gift from her mother, Mrs B, as a deliberate deprivation of assets. She says the Council rejected evidence her intent was not to avoid care fees. The Ombudsman finds fault in how the Council considered the matter and recommends a further review.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of the closure of a privately owned Neurodisability Service. There is fault in how the Council communicated the closure date to Mr X. This caused him avoidable distress. The Council has recognised this. It has agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay £100 to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: There is no evidence of fault by Lark Leas care home in relation to the care provided to Ms F’s mother, Mrs Q, regarding a fall in January 2018 fall and the action it took after.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the care provided by Mediline Home Care for her father and its decision to stop providing care for him. There have been problems with the care provided for her father which have had an adverse impact on Mrs X. Mediline Home Care needs to apologise and provide financial redress.

Summary: Ms F complains the care provider has charged the wrong fees for the care of her father. The care provider has made a claim to the county court. This puts the matter outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and I have discontinued my investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about care provided to his late mother, Mrs B, or his concerns that money has been taken from her inappropriately. This is because it is unlikely he could add to the Council’s response or make a different finding of the kind Mr C wants even if he investigated.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A’s complaint that her mother’s, Mrs B’s previous care provider, did not treat her with dignity and respect and shouted at her. This is because it is unlikely he could add to the care provider’s response or make a different finding of the kind Ms A wants even if he investigated.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s late complaint about the Council charging her deceased mother-in-law, Mrs C, for care she received without agreement with family members. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman and no good reason for him to exercise his discretion to investigate this late complaint now.

Summary: There is fault by the Council in this complaint in that it failed to undertake audits of direct payments between 2010 and 2016. However, this does not mitigate Mrs X’s responsibility to provide the Council with records of expenditure. Miss X has now provided the Council with the relevant information.

Summary: Ms C complained that the final bill she received from the Council in March 2018, about her mother’s care home fees, was too high. Ms C says the bill indicated her mother’s respite care home placement became permanent on 25 February 2016. However, Ms C says this only happened several weeks later. The Ombudsman found there was a lack of communication with Ms C by the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms C and revise the final bill.

Summary: The Council is at fault because it failed to take adequate steps to find weekend care for Mr A and failed to consult him properly before reducing his direct payment. This is not in line with section 27 of the Care Act 2014. The Council has also not commissioned Mr A’s care at the weekend. This is also fault and not in line with section 18 of the Care Act 2014 because the Council has not made arrangements to meet Mr A’s eligible needs. The Council’s failings caused Mr A avoidable distress. To remedy the injustice it will, within one month: apologise, pay Mr A £1000, carry out a review of the care and support plan and take urgent steps to find a home care agency to support Mr A if this is still needed after the review.

Summary: the Council did not follow its two stage review and appeal procedure when Ms Y asked for a review of her father’s assessed contribution towards the cost of his care package. I have completed the investigation and found fault and injustice. The Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B's complaint that the Council wrongly decided his mother-in-law deprived herself of assets to avoid paying care charges. It is unlikely an investigation would find fault. And it would be reasonable for Mr B to challenge the Council's decision in court if he believes it is unlawful.