Summary: Miss X complains about the way the Council assessed her mother’s needs and mental capacity, dealt with deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) and her complaints about this. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault in respect of the DoLS process, also some delay in assessment. This caused Miss X significant distress. The Council has agreed to apologise, review Mrs Y, and pay Miss X £300.
Summary: There was fault in the way the Council provided a care plan for Ms C and the way it managed a change in carers. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms C and her mother, Mrs B, offer Mrs B a meeting, provide a yearly care plan in line with the academic year and pay £200 for the distress caused by the fault.
Summary: I found Ms X suffered significant injustice due to the Council’s delay in assessing her need for adaptations to her home and processing the Occupational Therapist’s recommendation for a Disabled Facilities Grant to install a stair lift. This also had an adverse impact on other members of her family.
Summary: the Care Provider failed to use a system which provided accurate monthly invoices for care, delayed amending inaccurate invoices, failed to explain charges for petrol, failed to tell the family about staff changes in advance, failed to ensure carers used the login system, gave contradictory information about when a review would take place, failed to give a reason for terminating care and failed to have in place a proper complaints procedure. That led to Mr C having to go to time and trouble to pursue his complaint and to his sister having to spend time checking the Care Provider’s invoices. An apology, payment to Mr C and Miss D and changes to procedures is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.
Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s delays in dealing with a Disabled Facilities Grant, causing her avoidable distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault for its delays in progressing adaptations. We recommend the Council provides an apology and pays Mrs X £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience suffered.
Summary: Mrs X complained about the quality of domiciliary care provided to her mother by the care provider, arranged by the Council. We have discontinued the investigation to give the Council the opportunity to investigate and respond to the complaint.
Summary: Mrs D complained the Care Provider failed to provide her mother, Mrs M, with an appropriate level of care. Mrs D says this compromised Mrs M’s safety. The Care Provider is at fault because it lost Mrs M’s records following its own investigation based on those records. It also failed to ensure safety equipment checks were in place for support handles in the Care Home. During the investigation, the Care Provider agreed to waive the majority of the outstanding costs. It has also agreed to include small items of equipment such as support handles in its regular equipment safety checks in its care homes. These are satisfactory actions to take to address the fault identified.
Summary: Mr X and Ms Y complain the Council has delayed unnecessarily in providing an extension to their property to meet the latter’s needs, and has failed to keep them updated on the progress of the matter or respond to their emails about it. They also complain about the way the Council handled their complaint about these issues. The Ombudsman has found the Council was at fault for not giving adequate notice when cancelling scheduled appointments, for not recording these appointments, and for the way it handled Mr X and Ms Y’s complaint. However, we have not found fault in relation to any other part of their complaint. The failure to give proper notice caused them some injustice therefore the Council has agreed to offer an apology and ensure it gives at least 24 hours’ notice if it needs to cancel any future appointments. It has also agreed to make some service improvements to prevent the faults identified from reoccurring.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint about the Council charging her for her meals, which she says she cannot afford. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council regarding charging for meals to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the checks the Council did on a respite carer’s son. This is because Ms X has been to court about the matter.
Summary: Mrs X complains about the care her late mother received prior to her death at a care home. Although the Council found there to be evidence of some areas of some poor practice it did not offer Mrs X an adequate remedy for the injustice caused.
Summary: Ms C complained to us about the support her mother had received at her care home. The Ombudsman found some fault with regards to the way the care home provided Mrs D’s care, for which the care provider has agreed to apologise.
Summary: The complainant alleged that his mother in law was required to pay her assessed financial contribution, under the direct payment scheme, for personal care even when not in receipt of care. In contrast, the Council did not require these client contributions when the Council commissioned the care directly. The Ombudsman found fault and, to remedy this, the Council agreed to reimburse the complainant the client contributions, which he had paid during periods of no care, and to review its policies. The Ombudsman is satisfied that this resolves the complaint.
Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of her son Mr Y that the Council is not adequately meeting his care needs. We will not investigate this complaint as Ms X is not an authorised representative of the person affected by the Council’s actions
Summary: The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation into this complaint, about the Council’s handling of disabled facilities grant application, because the Council is still investigating it.
Summary: Mr R complains about care provided to his father, Mr F, by a care home commissioned by the Council. He says as a result of poor care his father suffered a protracted urinary tract infection and a head injury. The care home’s records were incomplete but there is no evidence the care provided was poor. The Council should make a payment to reflect the uncertainty caused by the incomplete record keeping.
Summary: Mr X complains about the provision of adult social care support for his elderly mother in the months before she died. And about the provision of adaptations. There was fault in the Council’s consideration of Mrs C’s ASC needs, the provision of respite care and in the complaint response. The Council should, within a month of the final decision, apologise and pay Mr X £500. It should also review the arrangements it has in place with housing associations for the provision of disabled adaptations.
Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the amount of the administrative fee the Council charges in connection with Disabled Facilities Grants. The Ombudsman does not have grounds to say the Council’s policy is at fault. The Council provided misleading information to Mr and Mrs X about the fee. It has already recognised this and offered to refund part of the fee. It has agreed an additional remedy to recognise their time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
Summary: There was a delay in the Council’s response to Mr C’s request for care and support for his parents. The Council also said the 12-week property disregard period started later than it should have done. The Council has agreed to apologise and repay Mr C for the fees that should not have been paid.
Summary: Mr X and Mrs Y complain on behalf of Mrs Z about the Council’s decision on the beneficial interest she gets from a property she part‑owns, and its decision not to apply a discretionary disregard. These matters are too old for the Ombudsman to investigate, and there are no good reasons for the Ombudsman to exercise discretion and investigate these late complaints. There is also no indication the Council dealt with the matter in a way involving fault.
Summary: Mr C complains about the rude and dismissive way he was spoken to by a Council officer during a telephone conversation. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
Summary: Mr C complains the Council removed his mother’s day centre place without arranging an alternative or funding for extra carer hours. Mr C says this led to carers not being paid, placing her care package at risk of breaking down. The Ombudsman finds the Council is at fault in how it managed this issue. However, this did not cause an injustice.
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.
