Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to include the value of her mother’s property, in its financial assessment. She says it has not explained its change of policy. The Ombudsman finds the Council is at fault. Its change in charging policy should have been clear and transparent to those affected by it. The Council has now amended its policy documents. It should remove any extra charges that were applied to Mrs P’s account up to the date the amendments were made.

Summary: Mrs X complains that her father’s care provider failed to provide adequate care, causing him to be taken into hospital. She says the care provider does not have records of the trauma he suffered, it refused to take him back when he was released from hospital, and it sent an invoice for the time he was in hospital. Mrs X is unhappy with the way she and her father were treated, which she says caused stress and anxiety. The Ombudsman does not uphold Mrs X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault.

Summary: Mr X complains of errors in the care of his mother Mrs X, by Caring Homes Healthcare Group Ltd. There were errors in some of the matters complained of that caused Mrs X distress and Mr X unnecessary anxiety about her care. The care provider will apologise and pay Mr X £250.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to deal properly with safeguarding concerns about her late father. The evidence does not support the claim that there was significant fault by the Council over its handling of the safeguarding concerns.

Summary: The Ombudsmen find no fault with the care and support provided by a Council, Trust and CCG to meet the complainant’s health and social care needs. Similarly, the Ombudsmen find no fault with the Council’s handling of the complainant’s homelessness applications.

Summary: Mr X complains of fault by the Council in transporting his mother, Mrs X to a day care placement and in failing to properly investigate failings by the care provider. He says she suffered harm as a result. We are not able to find fault with the Council.

Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council arranged Mrs X’s domiciliary care. The family privately arranged 24-hour live-in care and should be responsible for any debts. It also provided Mrs X’s family with a choice of residential care homes therefore the family are responsible for the third-party top-up fee. There was no fault in the Council’s financial assessments of Mrs X’s liability for care charges that caused any significant injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council left him without support in handling correspondence for over a year from January 2017. There was no fault by the Council over the way it decided Mr X does not have eligible care needs under the Care Act. That means the Council has no duty to meet his care needs and it is not accountable for any problems he experienced with the agencies it has referred him to.

Summary: Mr B complains that the Council delayed in carrying out a financial assessment of his late mother, Mrs C, and did not tell him she had to contribute towards the cost of her care until after she had died and he had distributed her estate. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B for the delay and cancel the outstanding charges. The Ombudsman considers this offer represents a satisfactory settlement of the complaint.

Summary: Ms B complains about the home care the Council arranged for her. In particular, she complains that the poor standard of care led her to slipping in the bath, which led to a hospital stay. The Ombudsman does not uphold the complaint.

Summary: Mr H complains about the Council’s use of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards to detain him in a care home. He also complains the care home charged him for his stay. And about the care the care home provided. The Ombudsman has found fault with delay in the Safeguard application and authorisation. And with how the Council placed Mr H in the care home. The Council has agreed to a payment to remedy the injustice to Mr H. This injustice is limited by the fact it is unlikely matters would have been very different, but for the fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaints about the way he was treated by his care provider. This is because he could not add to the Council’s response or make a different finding even if he investigated.

Summary: The Council failed to act when Mr X was unable to meet third-party top-up payments for his late father’s residential placement. This caused Mr X unnecessary stress and financial hardship. The Council is also at fault because the top-up payments were made directly to the care home. This is contrary to the Care Act Guidance.

Summary: There were errors in the way the Council handled a blue badge application which caused confusion. The Council has already carried out a further review in response to our enquiries and decided to issue a blue badge. It will also provide an apology. This is a satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: Mr Y complains the Care Home failed to provide adequate care to his Mother, Mrs X, causing distress to Mrs X and him. The Ombudsman finds no evidence of fault causing injustice by the Care Home.

Summary: Mr X has complained the care provider refused to reduce his father’s care fees when he became eligible for Funded Nursing Care. He has also complained about the care home’s decision to increase his father’s fees. There is some evidence of fault by the home.

Summary: Ms C complained that the care home, which was commissioned by the Council, failed to install a falls sensor mat for her mother, before she moved into the home. The Ombudsman has decided to uphold Ms C’s complaint. As such, the Council has agreed to provide an apology.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the care provided to her late father during a period of respite care in a residential home. The Ombudsman finds the actions of the home caused injustice in the form of distress to Mr Y and his family. The home failed to provide a sufficient level of personal care and failed to evidence that it monitored the integrity of Mr Y’s skin. The care provider will remedy the injustice caused with an apology. The care provider will provide evidence of the service improvements it has implemented following Mrs X’s complaint.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the standard of care her husband, Mr H (deceased), received at a care home between September 2017 and April 2018. The care provider was at fault. It failed to meet some of Mr H’s care needs, and accidentally stopped his blood thinning medication. This contributed to a decline in Mr H’s health, and his admission to hospital with a blood clot on his lung. The care provider agreed to refund Mrs X a total of £3185 in care home fees to recognise injustice caused by the faults. It also agreed to pay Mrs X a further £250 to recognise the distress caused to her because of the faults.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr Z’s complaint about the Council’s involvement in his late father’s hospital discharge. The complaint is late and that there are no good reasons to investigate it now.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the outcome of the Council’s safeguarding investigation into the home care provided to her late mother. There is no fault in the Council’s investigation which identified failures by the care provider and the Council’s out of hours team. The Council failed to recognise the injustice caused to Mrs X so we have made recommendations to address this.

Summary: There was fault by the Council in its record keeping. It cannot confirm with certainty officers told the complainant he would need to contribute towards his care costs or the exact date his care was cancelled. The Council’s offer to waive the care costs remedies the complaint.

Summary: Mr B complains the Council failed to correctly assess Mr C’s needs and identify eligibility for continuing healthcare. Mr B also complains the Council charged Mr C unnecessarily for residential care. The Council was at fault for not explaining Mr C’s contribution to his care costs. Mr C was charged for residential care his family believed would be free. The Council has agreed to reduce the money owed.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the care received by the complainant at the Care Home where she lives. This is because we would not be able to add anything further to the investigation previously carried out by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council set up a care package for him, causing him financial loss. The Ombudsman finds the Council failed to provide adequate information about charges to Mr X. The Ombudsman recommends the Council provides an apology and makes a payment.

Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider’s refusal to accept Ms J as a client, because it is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with its home care provider giving notice to end the care service to her late mother and related matters. There is no compelling reason to investigate considering the Council’s apologies and there not being an ongoing service.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A’s complaint about the Council including her mother’s, Mrs B’s, share of her property in her financial assessment. This is because the Council has advised Ms A it will not include Mrs B’s share of the property in the financial assessment so there is no unremedied injustice for the Ombudsman to investigate.

Summary: Mrs Y complains about the Council’s lack of transition planning for her son, X, who has recently turned 18. The Ombudsman finds the Council failed to appropriately forward plan for X’s transition into adult services. This is not in accordance with the requirements of the law and guidance. The Council will remedy the injustice this caused with the actions listed at the end of this statement.

Summary: Mr X says a care home where his wife resided for an eight-month period did not provide activities advertised in its sales brochure. This service cannot now determine whether the activities provided by the care home were sufficient to meet the needs of Mr X’s wife. However, the care home lacked staff required for activities and its handling of Mr X’s complaint was poor. The care home agreed to a financial remedy for Mr X to reflect the injustice caused to his wife and the time and trouble he was put to in pursuit of the matter.

Summary: Mr C complained about some of the recommendations the Council has made about adaptations to his son’s bedroom and bathroom. The Ombudsman did not find fault in the actions by the Council. In addition, the Council has offered a further visit to Mr D and his parents to discuss how Mr D’s bag can be changed in his bed.

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of himself and Miss F about the actions the Care Provider took when it asked them to leave the Care Home when they were visiting one of the residents. Mr X says this caused them unnecessary distress and they were subject to racial discrimination. The Care Home was at fault when asked Miss F to leave. It was also at fault when it failed to respond appropriately to Mr X’s complaint. The Care Home and Mr X and Miss F differ in their opinion of whether the Care Home apologised for its actions at a meeting. I was not at the meeting and so cannot say what happened and it is not proportionate to investigate this matter further. I am satisfied the Care Home has made staff aware of the complaints policy procedures in place.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to refund an overpayment of her son’s contribution to his care. This is because it would be reasonable for her to ask the Council to reassess his contribution following a recent DWP decision about his entitlement to benefits.

Summary: Mrs B complains the Council took money from her late husband’s bank account without authorisation. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and the payments in question were made to solicitors unconnected to the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about the Council’s decision he is not eligible for a Blue Badge. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision as it has been made in line with the current guidance on the issuing of Blue Badges from the Department for Transport.