Summary: Mr X complains about the quality of care provided to Mrs Y at Darwin Court Care Centre. He says he was increasingly concerned at her worsening health and had to move her out. The Ombudsman upholds Mr X’s complaint and recommends the Care Provider waive 50% of the outstanding notice and the dilapidation fees to remedy the increased risk of harm to her.

Summary: Mr D complains that the Council refused his application for crisis funding because he did not submit the evidence it requested within 24 hours. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault because, although it extended the deadline for submitting the evidence, it failed to inform Mr D it had done so. However, this fault did not cause Mr D a significant injustice because the Council later reviewed all the evidence he provided and made a fresh decision. The Ombudsman cannot interfere with that decision because it was properly made.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to tell the family the outcome of a financial reassessment of their mother’s contribution towards her home care and delayed sending amended invoices for the contributions. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault for being unclear about the result of the reassessment, delay in invoicing, failure to explain the late invoice and failure to put the complaint through its complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to apologise and to write off the debt caused by late, backdated adjustments. This is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused by the Council’s faults.

Summary: The care provider was at fault as it did not refund care home fees paid by the late Mr Y during a period when he received continuing health care funding. The care provider should refund the fees Mr Y paid but as the care provider has ceased trading and is going through the insolvency process we cannot achieve this remedy.

Summary: Mr B complains about the poor care his deceased father received at the care home he resided in for a year until his death in 2016. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it concerns events which occurred over 12 months ago and so falls outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint about the Council failure to respond to her concerns about charging for her late mother’s, Mrs B’s care. This is because the Council has agreed to reimburse the overpayment of fees and the Ombudsman is satisfied this remedies any injustice to Mrs A.

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 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 Ombudsmen have stopped investigating Mr A’s complaint about the choice of legal powers applied to his late mother, Mrs B, in hospital following her detention under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act. This is because they could not achieve the outcome Mr A wants. There is a more appropriate route for Mr A to pursue in relation to Mrs B’s Continuing Healthcare funding.

Summary: The Council is at fault as it failed to properly consider whether Miss X had fluctuating needs when carrying out care needs assessments so wrongly recommended her personal budget be reduced. The Council is also at fault as it cannot demonstrate it considered all Miss X’s claimed disability related expenditure. The faults by the Council caused significant distress and uncertainty to Miss X and put her to avoidable time and trouble which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide his son, Mr Y, with suitable transport to a day centre. The Council has not provided suitable transport to accommodate Mr Y’s electric wheelchair since September 2017. This is fault and the Council has agreed to pay Mr Y £900 for the distress caused and it has agreed to arrange suitable transport. The Council has also agreed to provide a payment of £100 to Mr X for his time and trouble in bringing the complaint to the Council and the Ombudsman and also for the frustration the matter has caused.

Summary: Mr C says the Council did not support him adequately as he moved out of care and this led him to make poor life choices and gave him too little support in his career. The Council was not at fault as Mr C says: It gave him advice but could not make him take it. However, it is at fault for a failure to use the statutory complaints process for Mr C’s complaint but this fault caused him no injustice.

Summary: Mrs X complained about her mother’s care and discharge from a reablement centre. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has investigated Mrs X’s complaint and it is unlikely further investigation by us will lead to a different result.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint because he does not have consent from the person most directly affected to complain. If he did, we should still not investigate because Mr X can approach the Office of the Public Guardian and the Court of Protection if he has concerns about his cousin’s care and welfare.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that her care provider failed to compensate her for the damage carers did to her belongings. This is because we could not order the Council to pay compensation to her.

Summary: The Ombudsmen find a hospital Trust and a Council failed to manage a complex discharge from hospital adequately. Together, they did not complete a suitable assessment of need, arrange an appropriate interim placement or conduct an adequate discussion of the person’s best interests. As a result the complainant was left with considerable uncertainty about whether a different outcome might have been reached. The Ombudsmen recommends apologies from the Trust and Council. It also recommends repayment of the cost of the missed interim placement and action to learn from the case.

Summary: The Ombudsman upholds parts of the complaint from Mrs X about the way the Council assessed her mother, Mrs Y, and the care provided to Mrs Y while she was resident in a council-run care home. There is evidence of poor communication and a failure to follow procedures. These faults caused Mrs X avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make a payment to Mrs Y in recognition of her lost personal belongings. The Council will also remind its staff about the procedure for making best interest decisions and the importance of accurate record keeping. It agreed to carry out an audit to ensure the care home is following its admission and discharge process correctly and will consider making changes to its assessment documentation.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council assessed his care needs, the support it provided and the way it responded to referrals from other agencies. The Council is not at fault.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to carry out adequate social care reviews with his wife, Mrs X, did not allocate her a social worker, did not plan ahead in case her disabilities worsened as a result of her pregnancy and failed to respond properly to his complaints. Mr X also says the Council referred Mrs X to Children’s Services on the sole basis of her disabilities. The Council was at fault when it failed to inform Mrs X of the outcome of her review and did not respond properly to Mr X’s complaints. The Council should apologise to Mr and Mrs X and review procedures for updating individuals following an adult social care review. There was no fault in the Council’s other actions.

Summary: Mr B, with the support of a representative, complains the Council failed to consider his complaint under the Children Act 1989 complaints procedure. This caused Mr B injustice because his complaint was not dealt with as it should have been. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault for failing to follow the statutory children’s social care complaints procedure. To remedy Mr B’s injustice, the Council has agreed to consider Mr B’s complaint using this procedure.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about the actions his father’s, Mr B’s, care provider took regarding his care. This is because the care provider has apologised for the failings and advised Mr A it will review its processes. Any further investigation by the Ombudsman could not make a different finding or provide Mr A with the outcome he wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to provide information about the fees it paid to Mrs A’s Care Home. The complaint is late.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to investigate her concerns under its statutory processes. This is because where he is not investigating the substantive matters, he will not usually consider how a Council has considered the complaint. That is the case here.

Summary: The Council and Trust failed to fully assess Ms V’s social care needs between 2009 and 2016, which possibly meant she did not receive direct payments when she should have. Although I cannot say this affected the care she received, this has led to uncertainty and has had an emotional impact. The Council and Trust have agreed to pay Ms V £500 to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Mr B is autistic and has support needs. He complains about how the Council moved him from supported living accommodation to his own flat and says this does not meet his needs. He says he is isolated, and his support has been cut which is making his depression worse. There was no fault by the Council. The landlord asked Mr B to move. The Council has ensured his needs are met.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about how the Council has supported their adult daughter when she was discharged from hospital. They say that lack of support and contact from the Council has left them frustrated and distressed and their daughter is not getting her needs met. There was no fault by the Council. It properly involved Mr and Mrs X in assessing their daughter’s needs and forming a support plan that meets her needs.

Summary: The Council is at fault as its care needs assessments for Mr Y carried out in April 2017 and January 2018 were inadequate. The Council is at also at fault as it wrongly issued an instruction or policy to officers that it would no longer meet service users’ eligible needs for shopping, domestic and meal preparation without considering if those needs could be met in an alternative way. As a result Mr Y’s care package was not sufficient to meet his needs. This caused significant injustice to Mr Y and Mrs X. Mr Y’s personal assistant also carried out his shopping without pay. The fault also potentially affects other service users. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains an appropriate remedy has not been provided for the upheld complaints about a care assessment. The Council delayed in assessing the needs of his twin sons who have autism. As a result the family had to manage without necessary adaptations for 10 months longer than should have been the case. A suitable remedy is now agreed.

Summary: Some of the care provided to Mrs Y at a residential care home was below an acceptable standard. The care home failed to properly record decisions made by a CPN, and failed to communicate this decision, and other information about Mrs Y’s health to her daughter. The company accepts failings in its practice and has made improvements. We have made recommendations to address the injustice caused to Mrs Y and her daughter.

Summary: Ms B runs a care home and says the Council has not fulfilled its duties towards one of the residents, Ms C which meant the care home was not paid. The Ombudsman has found fault in the Council’s delay and failure to carry out the necessary assessments of Ms C. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms B, carry out a financial assessment of Ms C and, depending on the outcome of the assessment, pay the care home any fees it owes.

Summary: There was fault by the Council as it delayed carrying out a financial and care assessment for one and a half years. Mr B, an adult with considerable care needs, remained in his placement and so there was no direct injustice to him. The Council has offered to waive the return of an overpayment, reduce the financial contribution and fund the cost of day care until the date of the financial assessment. The Council has also offered to recalculate the date Mr B became eligible for help with care costs as new accounts have been supplied.

Summary: There was fault in the way the care agency handled two visits and the Council has upheld Ms B’s complaint. The Council has already remedied the injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s response to an email he sent in August 2018. He does not think it should have dealt with it as a complaint and says the refusal to answer some questions is unreasonable. The Ombudsman finds there was fault by the Council in how it handled an email from Mr X listing questions he wanted answering. Although treating it as a complaint was acceptable, it took too long to respond and misapplied its own rule about complaints on matters over 12 months old. This was fault and it caused Mr X an injustice in the form of frustration. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising and revisiting its complaint response.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to take responsibility for his mother’s (Mrs Y’s) care and support needs. He also complains he was given poor legal advice. He says this has led to financial difficulties, uncertainty and distress. The Council is at fault. The Council is currently responsible for Mrs Y’s care and support. It has agreed to write to all those involved to clarify its position, apologise to Mr X and pay him £500 to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty caused. It has also agreed to work with Mr X to agree the support required to meet Mrs Y’s needs and provide agreed support in line with the law and its policies. It will also provide guidance for staff. There is no evidence of fault in the legal advice it provided Mr X.

Summary: The Ombudsman has discontinued our investigation into Ms B’s complaint. The Council has agreed to reconsider her son’s disabled parking badge application using the new government guidance, so it is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint about the Council’s safeguarding enquiry into the care his grandmother received in her Care Home. It is unlikely that further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr and Mrs C say the Council is at fault for its failure to provide suitable care for their son, Mr D. The Council is at fault for delay and other failures in providing support. It is also at fault for a failure to assess Mr D’s capacity to make his own decisions. This caused him injustice. The Council should assess Mr D’s capacity. It should pay sums in recognition of these faults to both Mr and Mrs C and Mr D. It should use its best efforts to try to find suitable accommodation for Mr D.

Summary: There was fault in the way the Council assessed Ms B’s needs for care and support and in the way it decided that it did not have to provide her with support. The Council has agreed to apologise to the family, carry out a financial assessment of Ms B and, depending on the outcome of the assessment, repay Ms B’s estate any money it owes.

Summary: There is no evidence that shows Council told Mr X that Mrs Y would receive a period of free reablement care. Mrs Y was not a suitable candidate for such care and Mr X was informed Mrs Y would have a financial assessment and depending on the outcome, would have to contribute towards her care.

Summary: Some areas of the day to day care provided to Ms Y at a care home were below an acceptable standard, and staff failed to keep records of complaints made. Complaint responses from head office failed to address all points of complaint

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to protect her sister’s belongings because it lies outside our jurisdiction. Complaints about the actions of deputies are considered by the Office of the Public Guardian.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this Blue Badge complaint because the Council has agreed to do a review under the new rules.