Summary: The Ombudsmen find fault in the way a Council and Trust stopped a service user’s Direct Payment. It had not properly established if alternative provision was in place, and it did not properly address concerns about use of the payments. The Ombudsmen also find fault in the way the Council made a back payment for an earlier period of care. The Ombudsmen recommend an apology, reimbursement of lost payments and a small compensatory payment.

Summary: There was fault in the way the Council made decisions about Mr F’s future respite care. This caused Mr F and his sister Ms E 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. This action is an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has reduced the direct payments she receives for her sister (Ms Y). There is no fault in the way the Council reached its decision. The Council failed to properly review Ms Y’s care plan in previous years but this caused her no injustice.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide details of different care options and costs when her mother in law moved to a nursing home in 2012. Mrs X knew more than 12 months before she complained to the Ombudsman about different care options and how to seek a reassessment. The complaint falls outside the Ombudsman jurisdiction as it is a late complaint.

Summary: Ms C complained on behalf of Mr B, that the Council had taken too long to find an alternative placement for him. On the evidence available, we cannot identify any unreasonable delay in the process. The Council did cause some confusion due to a lack of clarity in its communication, but it apologised for this and explained the situation.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council’s care provider, Care Unique, failed to meet all his father’s care needs. There were faults by the Council and Care Unique, which meant some of the father’s needs were not met. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay financial redress.

Summary: Mr X complained about changes the Council made to his personal budget for care and support. The Council was at fault as it reduced Mr X’s personal budget without properly considering his individual needs and wishes. It repeatedly sent him historical care plans, giving him conflicting information, and it delayed significantly in responding to his complaint. These faults caused Mr X significant distress, and he went to added time and trouble in complaining. The faults have led to Mr X becoming isolated and have significantly impacted his wellbeing. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Mr X £1,000. It has also agreed to urgently review Mr X’s care and support plan and issue a Care Act-compliant plan.

Summary: The Council’s appointed care provider was at fault for not alerting Mrs B when her daughter’s unpaid travel costs exceeded £100 as agreed. This caused Mrs B avoidable distress and concern when she received a bill for £700 over a year later. The Ombudsman recommends the Council pays Mrs B £150 in recognition of the distress. The care provider should also agree a sustainable and affordable payment plan with Mrs B to pay off the debt and put measures in place to prevent her daughter from accruing further debt.

Summary: The care provider knew of the end date for NHS funding at the same time as Mr X. The actions of the care provider did not cause injustice to Mr X.

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 cannot investigate Ms A’s complaint about the actions of the National Autistic Society. This is because it is not a body within his jurisdiction.

Summary: Mrs D complains the Council has incorrectly charged her late father, Mr X, for the domiciliary care it provided. The Council was not at fault in the way it decided Mr X had deliberately deprived himself of assets or for charging for a full scheduled care visit when a shorter visit took place. There were specific incidents of poor care which the care provider addressed at the time and which did not cause a significant injustice to Mr X. There was some fault as the care staff did not accurately record the time they spent at a visit and the invoices sent to Mrs D do not tally with the visits that took place. The Council has agreed to reduce the debt by 10% and to remind the care provider of the need to record actual visit times.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s late complaint about the actions of her aunt’s, Mrs B’s, care provider in 2016 and 2017. This is because Mrs A could have come to the Ombudsman sooner if she was concerned about the money being taken from Mrs B’s account at the time. The Ombudsman could not say Mrs B lacked capacity in 2016 to make the decisions she made, or say she should not have to pay for her care. There is no good reason for the Ombudsman to disapply the law and investigate these matters now.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s response to her concerns about outstanding works carried out under a Disabled Facilities Grant. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters.

Summary: Mr B complains Christies Care failed to provide regular carers with suitable experience/qualifications to meet his mother’s needs during 2018 and failed to update her care/support plan when asked. Christies Care accepts there was little continuity over the carers provided and it could have communicated better with Mr B over his mother’s care. However, there is not enough evidence of injustice to justify recommending a remedy.

Summary: Mrs D complained about the way the care provider responded when her father fell. The care provider was at fault as it did not comply with its falls policy. The care provider has already revised its procedures. It has agreed to pay Mrs D £250 in recognition of the distress and uncertainty this caused.

Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s assessment of his needs, lack of advocate and lack of care provision. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the Council has offered assessments and advocacy in the past but this depends on Mr B’s engagement with the offered services. However, there was fault in the records and lack of care plan and more recently, in the lack of advocacy. The Council has agreed to offer Mr B an advocate for a re-assessment of his needs and then provide the documents it should have provided under the Care Act.

Summary: The Ombudsman discontinued his investigation of this complaint, about standards of care in an independent living facility. This is because he considers it better for the complainant to ask the Council to carry out a fresh investigation.

Summary: Ms P complained that a council and NHS Trust took too long to arrange her mother Mrs D’s discharge from hospital and did not do so properly. Then, they were forced to accept a care home which was known to provide poor care. Mrs D was neglected and abused there. The council did not respond properly and closed its safeguarding investigation without good cause. The Ombudsmen find that the Council and Trust delayed the discharge, and did not properly consider possible options. They caused the family to believe they had to accept a placement they did not want, or Mrs D would be forced to leave hospital the next week. The council gave them incorrect information about care costs. The council did not properly ensure Mrs D was safe after an alleged assault. The council closed the safeguarding enquiry without investigating properly and ensuring others were safeguarded. The Ombudsmen recommend actions to address this.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the care provided to Mr Y and delays with a safeguarding investigation which upheld allegations of neglect and organisational abuse by Amore Elderly Care Limited. She also complains about the lack of suitable care homes and confusion over what care Mr Y needed. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault in the care provided and the delay, but not in the other matters. The Council caused Mrs X and her family much distress, time and trouble and has agreed to pay Mrs X and her sister £750 each, and waive or refund Mr Y’s care costs from 1 February 2015.

Summary: Mrs X has complained that the Council failed to ensure her mother’s needs were being met. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms X complained the care provider provided her with inadequate care, failed to make reasonable adjustments, unfairly terminated her care and did not investigate her complaint properly. Ms X says this caused her distress and created a risk to her health. The care provider was at fault when it failed to provide the service agreed with Ms X or give adequate reasons why it refused her request for reasonable adjustments. The care provider also failed to properly investigate Ms X’s complaint. The care provider has made an appropriate financial payment to Ms X to remedy the injustice it caused her and reviewed some of its procedures. It should make further procedural changes. There was no fault in the way the care provider terminated Ms X’s contract.

Summary: Ms C complained about the respite care the Council had arranged for her (late) father at a care home. She also complained about the way in which the Council responded when she raised concerns about his care. The Ombudsman decided to uphold the complaint. As such, the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms C for the distress she suffered. It will also pay her a financial remedy for the care she provided to her father and it will share the lessons learned with relevant staff.

Summary: Mr X complains about the occupational therapy service provided by the Council. He says this caused delays in meeting Mrs Y’s needs in this area. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council incorrectly calculated her Minimum Income Guarantee as she believes this figure should include a disability premium. She also says the Council requested excessive amounts of evidence as proof of her Disability Related Expenditure. The Council is not at fault.

Summary: Ms X complained about her dealings with the Council over its assessment of her social care needs as well as the requirements for the installation of a stair lift in her home. The Ombudsman cannot investigate her complaint because it must first be put through the Council’s complaints procedure.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council denied him the opportunity to be present or informed of his father’s care and support assessments. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms B complains about the Council’s action in obtaining a County Court Judgement against her for her grandmother’s unpaid care home fees. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because Ms B knew the disputed CCJ had been obtained in 2014 and the Council has now taken appropriate action to have the Judgement set aside.

Summary: Mr B complains on behalf of his late great grandmother, Mrs C. He is unhappy with the care provided to her by a number of organisations which he says led to physical discomfort for her and distress for her family. There were some failings by the Council which it should apologise for and provide Mr B with details of how it will ensure these failings do not happen again. There were no failings by the other organisations involved in Mr B’s complaint.

Summary: Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council’s investigation into a safeguarding referral Ms X made in 2012 was too slow and it failed to properly investigate and conclude a later referral. This amounts to fault which has caused avoidable distress and uncertainty and the Council will apologise and pay Ms X £350 to recognise this. There is no fault in relation to the other parts of Ms X’s complaint.

Summary: the Council was not at fault in the way it reviewed Ms X’s care and support and altered the arrangements for management of her Direct Payments.

Summary: There is no evidence that the Council failed to arrange services which met the late Mr X’s needs.

Summary: Mrs C complained the Council did not give proper support to her mother-in-law and family over the financial aspects of her mother-in-law going into residential care. The Ombudsman considers the Council was at fault in some respects but it did not cause significant injustice to Mrs X or her family.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about the actions of his mother’s, Mrs B’s, social worker. This is because he could not add to the Council’s response of make a finding of the kind Mr A wants. The Ombudsman is satisfied an apology remedies any injustice to Mr A and Mrs B.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about lost dentures in a care home. This is because the complaint about the substantive issue is made late, and there are no good reasons to exercise the Ombudsman’s discretion to consider it now. In addition, we could not add anything to the Council’s previous investigation into the other issues raised.

Summary: Ms X complains a member of the care provider’s staff persuaded her to take out several personal loans. The member of staff then took the money Ms X had borrowed. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is a matter for the police.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint about the care she received from the care provider. This is because it is unlikely he could add to the care provider’s response or make a finding of the kind Mrs A wants.

Summary: Ms X complains about the quality of the support the Council provided to the late Mrs Y. Also about the way the Council dealt with her queries and complaints about this, charges and payments. She says she is unclear whether Mrs Y’s finances were in order. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault in the support provided and dealing with Ms X’s complaints but not at fault in respect of charges and payments. The Council should apologise, pay Ms X £300 and review the complaint handling.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council has not provide adequate assistance to help her move nearer her family or ensure adequate night provision in case of a medical emergency. Miss X’s social worker is working with her to identify alternative accommodation in her preferred area. It has also made contingency arrangements if an emergency should occur at night. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: Mr B says the Council failed to take action following a previous Ombudsman investigation to ensure the care he received was improved. The Council failed to monitor the care provided to Mr B properly which resulted in similar problems to those identified in the previous complaint. Further monitoring, spot checks, an apology, payment to Mr B’s sisters who complained on his behalf and reducing Mr B’s arrears of client contribution is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: Ms C is unhappy about the way in which the care provider has dealt with an increase in Mr D’s care home fees, as well as his final bill. The Ombudsman has upheld Ms C’s complaint. The care provider has agreed to provide an apology to Ms C, revise its final bill and share the lessons learned with relevant staff.

Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council carried out a review of her care needs and reduced the hours of support she previously received. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters.

Summary: The Council acknowledged failings in the home care provided to Mr Y before the complaint came to the Ombudsman. However, it failed to provide an adequate remedy. We have made recommendations to address this.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint about being coerced into a care home in 2017. This is because any further investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to be able to add to the Council’s response or make a different finding of the kind Mrs A wants.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about an invoice for care sent by the Council, after Mr and Mrs X were told that they would not have to pay for this care. This is because the Council has already provided a fair response and there is not enough remaining injustice to warrant an investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s late complaint about her mother’s, Mrs B’s, care provider. This is because he could not add to the care provider’s response or make a different finding of the kind Mrs A wants even if he investigated now. The injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s late complaint that the Council denied his father, Mr B, his human rights between 2013 and 2017. This is because the complaints is late and Mr B has now died. Any injustice to Mr B cannot be remedied so there is no good reason for the Ombudsman to disapply the law to investigate this late complaint now.

Summary: Mrs C complains of the delay by the Council in completing the adaptations to her home. The Ombudsman found some fault as there were avoidable delays, which caused Mrs C distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a financial payment for the injustice caused.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained care commissioned by the Council at The Donnington Nursing Home for Mrs Y was unacceptable and unsafe. The Ombudsman finds fault with aspects of the Home’s record keeping and care provision. The Ombudsman also finds the Council delayed carrying out an annual review. The faults affected Mrs Y’s wellbeing and caused some distress and uncertainty for Mr and Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Mrs Y £1200 and Mr and Mrs X £300 to acknowledge the impact of the faults on them, and take action to ensure the faults do not recur in future.

Summary: Mr F’s children complained about the way the Council decided that he would have to pay a contribution towards his care package. The Ombudsman found fault with the way in which the Council communicated with the family and recorded decisions. The Council has agreed to provide an apology for the distress it has caused and share the lessons learned with its adult social care staff.

Summary: There is no fault by Birmingham City Council in relation to this complaint about its handling of processes around the assessment and placement of Mr Q when he needed to move into residential care.

Summary: The complaint concerns Miss B’s application for a disabled person’s parking badge. We did not find fault undermining how the Council reached its decision to refuse the application.

Summary: Mr X complained to the Council the residential home caring for his mother had agreed to backdate a refund of ‘top up’ fees, but then changed its mind. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has investigated Mr X’s complaint and it is unlikely further investigation by us will lead to a different result.

Summary: Mr B complained on behalf of his mother about the Council’s failure to provide information he had requested in relation to her care. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because the information has now been provided.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council in respect of a resident at the complainant’s Care Home. This is because the complainant has started legal proceedings, so the matter is out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: Mr X complains that his brother-in-law, the late Mr Y, was wrongly evicted from a care home. He says the home did not provide notice, had no good reason to ask him to leave and incorrectly charged him. He says Mr Y was discriminated against and Mr X and Mr Y suffered an injustice because of this treatment. We have found the home at fault in the way it handled Mr Y’s discharge. It also incorrectly billed and failed to provide written notice pursuant to contract. But we do not find Mr Y was discriminated against. We have made recommendations to remedy the fault.