Summary: A woman complains about the lack of support she received to recruit a personal assistant, and about an assessment by the Council which reduced her support by over 60%.
Summary: Mr & Mrs J complain the Council was wrong to reduce their support hours in 2016, has failed to rectify the error during subsequent reviews and was wrong to exclude Mrs K from meetings as their chosen communicator guide.
Summary: There was fault in the way the Council made decisions about Mr B’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 the loss of respite care during the period of closure. This action is an appropriate remedy for the injustice.
Summary: The Ombudsmen find no fault in a Council’s and Health Service’s responses to requests for home support. Both organisations made relevant enquiries, and neither was able to satisfy itself that the person had needs which met their criteria for support.
Summary: Ms B complains that the Council de-activated her freedom pass and required her to attend a medical assessment. She also complains about the Council’s decision not to issue a replacement pass. On the evidence seen so far, the Ombudsman does not uphold Ms B’s complaint. There is no evidence that the Council deactivated the pass. It was entitled to require her to attend a medical assessment and properly applied the guidance on eligibility for a freedom pass when deciding Ms B was not eligible.
Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s actions around contract monitoring and safeguarding issues with her care agency, agency A. She feels she has been discriminated against and treated unfairly, and the Council’s actions have damaged to her reputation. The Ombudsman found no fault in the Council’s actions.
Summary: There was fault in the way the Council made decisions about Ms D’s future respite care. This caused Ms C and Ms D 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.
Summary: Miss X says the Council is at fault in how it has calculated the amount her father should contribute towards the cost of his care. This is because it has included the value of her father’s home despite him transferring ownership of it to her and her sister. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault by the Council and so he has ended his investigation of this complaint.
Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council handled plans to move her grand-daughter, Miss Z, into supported living. As a result, Mrs X says they were caused avoidable and unnecessary distress and inconvenience. The Council was at fault for poor record keeping and failing to communicate effectively with Mrs X. It also took too long to investigate her complaint. The Council has already apologised for the delays in its investigation and admitted there was poor communication and record keeping. It says it has learnt lessons which have been communicated to the relevant Council teams. The Council should provide evidence it has carried this out and make financial payments to Mrs X and Miss Z to remedy the injustice it caused them.
Summary: Mr C complained about the total amount Mr F has had to pay for his homecare support. The Ombudsman found that, although there was some fault in the actions of the Council, this did not result in a financial injustice to Mr F.
Summary: Mr B complains the Council did not deal with his application for a blue badge properly. The Council did not properly make a record of the walking assessment it carried out and did not give detailed reasons for rejecting his application. Mr B cannot be certain the Council assessed his application correctly. The Council has offered to reassess Mr B as well as provide more information in decision letters and this is an adequate remedy.
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council assessed her needs and agreed she had a need to access the bath, but has not provided the required equipment or adaptations to enable her to do this. This has affected her health and wellbeing. The Council is at fault. There was a lack of clarity in how it assessed her needs and eligibility for assistance. This has caused Mrs X confusion and uncertainty. The Council agrees to complete a reassessment of her needs, and pay her £100 to acknowledge the confusion and uncertainty. It also agrees to review its occupational therapy assessment procedures.
Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Council. The Council asked Mrs B’s brother about his religious preferences and family contacts, and acted in accordance with his wishes.
Summary: There was fault in the Council’s decision to refuse Mr X’s application for a blue badge for his daughter Miss Y. To remedy the injustice the Council will give Miss Y a blue badge for one year.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s late complaint about the Council’s assessment of her late mother’s care needs in 2015. This is because the Council has implemented the recommendations from its safeguarding findings and the Coroner’s hearing and has met with Mrs A to advise her what actions it has taken. Any further investigation by the Ombudsman could not achieve any more than this.
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to alleged financial abuse of the complainant’s mother. This is because the complaint is out of jurisdiction as the issues have formed part of court proceedings.
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the decision his father’s Care Home made to place restrictions on his visits. The injustice he suffered because of the alleged fault is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
Summary: Mr D complained the Council failed to put in place a care package for his mother following an assessment. The Council’s procedures for assessing priority and contacting care providers are inadequate. That leaves Mr D not knowing whether his mother could have received a care package before she died which would have reduced the stress on him. Changes to procedures, an apology and a financial payment are satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.
Summary: Mr N complains about a delay in processing his disabled facilities grant application, contradictory assessments and that the Council misunderstood how the financial assessment worked. It also delayed implementing the Regulatory Reform Order. And did not respond to his complaint. The Ombudsman upholds the complaint about delay in processing the application and not responding to a complaint. We also find evidence of missing records and misleading advice. We have recommended an apology and payment to Mr N and some improvements in the Council’s service.
Summary: Mr D complained about how the Council considered his son’s contributions towards the cost of his care. However, we have found no fault with the Council’s actions.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the way the Council took recovery action against her for the repayment of outstanding care fees owed by her late father. This is because the Council has made a reasonable offer to remedy the inappropriate recovery action and the issue concerning the level of her father’s contribution to his care costs is too old to investigate now and so falls outside our jurisdiction.
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the action the Council took when he and his mother tried to find his mother’s missing money. We could not achieve a worthwhile outcome and other agencies are better placed to address the relevant matters.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s late complaint about care provided to his friend, Mrs A, in 2017. This is because Mr B could have complained sooner and the care provider has apologised for the fault and explained it had amended it procedures when a resident with capacity enters the home. The Council has waived Mrs A’s care fees for the duration she lived in the home. The Ombudsman is satisfied with the actions taken by the care provider and the Council so there is no good reason for him to disapply the law and investigate this late complaint further.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council deceived the complainant into signing a form. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
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: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of a complaint he made regarding the care and support his parents received from its Adult Social Care team. The substantive matter Mr X complained to the Council about – the care and support his parents received – is late. So we will not investigate a complaint about the Council’s complaints procedure.
Summary: Miss D complains about care and treatment of her father, Mr D, by two NHS Trusts while he was in hospital. She also complains about the way the Council assessed and provided for Mr D’s social care needs. The Ombudsmen have upheld parts of Miss D’s complaints and made recommendations for service improvements. The Council and NHS Trusts agree to the recommendations, so the Ombudsmen have completed their investigation.
Summary: Mr B says the Council did not take appropriate action in response to his father, Mr C’s self-neglect. He also complains about the care agency’s actions when it could not gain access to Mr C’s home. The Council should have reviewed Mr C’s care plan and the agency should have reviewed what actions it would take when Mr C was not at home. The Ombudsman recommends the Council apologises to Mr B.
Summary: there was evidence of poor care and treatment on the part of the care provider which caused injustice to the late Mrs P. The care provider will now apologise to Mrs X, review its processes and offer Mrs X a sum in recognition of the distress caused by its failings.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council has withdrawn the complainant’s social care support. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to charge his father the full costs of his care, on the basis that he has intentionally deprived himself of capital to avoid care and support charges. The Council has not explained its decision fully in lie with the Care and Support Statutory Guidance. It therefore needs to reconsider its decision.
Summary: Ms B complains about the way the Council handled safeguarding concerns raised about her care of her elderly mother. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there was no fault by the Council in following up on the safeguarding referral and an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to add to the complaint response or lead to a different outcome.
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr A’s complaint about the actions of his late uncle’s, Mr B’s care provider. This is because the actions complained of are not in connection with the provision of adult social care as defined in law, and are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to complete a care assessment and support plan that addresses needs and refused to release funds to meet those needs. The Council failed to properly assess the best way to meet Mr B’s needs and delayed paying the approved budget. That means Mr B is left not knowing whether the outcome would have been different if the Council had carried out its assessments properly. Mr B’s mother also had to provide care for three months longer than necessary. An apology, agreement to carry out a further assessment, following the statutory guidance and payments to Mr B and his mother is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.
Summary: Mr B complains the Council did not give him any support to move properties. Mr B says because of this, he had two tenancies at the same time which resulted in a housing benefit overpayment. The Council accepts it could have communicated more clearly about the support it could offer. The Council will pay Mr B’s housing overpayment.
Summary: There is evidence of fault by the Council, in that it did not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the quality of care provided to Mrs Y in a care home. There is no evidence to suggest Mrs Y received poor care. There were some administrative errors by the care home, but these had no impact on the care Mrs Y received.
Summary: Ms D complained on behalf of her father, Mr E, about the failure to properly inform them about the cost of a temporary stay in a nursing home following Mr E’s discharge from hospital. There was fault by the Council in the failure to give clear information about the different payments, exacerbated by delay in carrying out the financial assessment. The Council has agreed to pay Mr E £1500 and improve its procedures.
Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s actions in raising concerns about the intended use of his Direct Payments. The Ombudsman will not investigate the 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: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the working of the lift in a care home. This is because we are unlikely to find fault causing significant injustice in the actions of the service provider and in the way that it made its decisions.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A’s complaint about care provided to her late father, Mr B in 2017. This is because any further investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to provide Ms A with a different outcome to that she has already received from the care provider and the Council.
Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s management of direct payments for her son, Mr Y, and its failure to support him. Ms X says she has incurred costs as a result. The Ombudsman finds the Council provided inadequate information about Mr Y’s direct payments and delayed completing a support plan. The Ombudsman recommends the Council provides an apology, pays Ms X £7,500 and completes Mr Y’s support plan.
Summary: There is evidence of fault in this complaint. Some of the domiciliary care provided to the late Mr Y was poor. During the Council’s investigation about this it failed to give sufficient weight to the evidence Ms X provided. This caused Ms X unnecessary frustration and distress.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint from a Care Provider alleging the Council has failed to make payments for its work with a Council client. This is mainly because we do not have consent from the relevant person. So, I consider it would be reasonable to expect the Care Provider to go to court to enforce the terms of its contract with the Council.
Summary: Mr X complained the Council continued to refer to a false allegation about him in court reports concerning his grandson Mr Y. The Council was entitled to refer to factual information about the allegation having been reported to its social worker. However it failed to amend the report to say it had previously found the allegation about Mr X was unsubstantiated. It has agreed to make this amendment, apologise to Mr X and pay him £150.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A’s complaint about the Council’s decision to decline her grant application for a hard standing to the front of her property. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council has decided her application.
Summary: The Council was not at fault in how it considered Ms B’s application for a disabled parking badge. As the Ombudsman has not found fault in how the Council made the decision, we cannot question the decision itself.
Summary: Mrs X complained about the care provided by the Council to her son, Mr Z. Mrs X is not a suitable representative for Mr Z. In addition, there is no evidence of fault in the care being provided to Mr Z.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A ‘s complaint about the Council’s actions when it received allegations about her. This is because it is unlikely he would find evidence of fault with the Council’s actions warranting investigation. It would be reasonable for Mrs A to ask the information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to consider her complaint about access to information.
Summary: The Council was not at fault in how it assessed the complainant for a blue badge. The Council properly considered the medical evidence submitted in support of the application, and followed official guidance in reaching its decision not to renew the complainant’s badge.
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.
