Summary: The complainant, Ms G, said Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust and Hertfordshire County Council failed to properly plan her discharge from hospital and provide her with formal support after she was discharged from hospital. Ms G said this had an adverse impact on her wellbeing. She also said Watford Borough Council failed to consider her homelessness and housing application properly which meant she remained in unsuitable accommodation for too long. On the evidence available the Ombudsmen found no fault in the way the Borough Council dealt with Ms G’s homelessness situation. There were faults in the way the Trust discharged Ms G from hospital and both it and the County Council failed to assess all her needs once she was in the community and this had adverse impact on Ms G’s wellbeing. The Trust and the County Council have agreed to the Ombudsmen’s recommendations and will apologise to Ms G and pay her a financial remedy to acknowledge the adverse impact the faults had on her wellbeing. The Trust and the County Council will act to improve discharge planning and the requirement to complete formal assessments in line with the Care Act 2014.
Summary: The complainant said London Borough of Islington and Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust failed to properly consider his brother’s entitlement to aftercare services which should have been provided without charge. During the investigation, the Council and the Trust accepted they were at fault as they had failed to act in accordance with the terms of the Mental Health Act 1983. As a result, the complainant’s brother paid for services which should have been provided without charge. To remedy the injustice, the Council and the Trust have agreed to the Ombudsmen’s recommendations to repay the financial loss plus interest. Both the Council and the Trust will apologise to the complainant and his brother, make additional time, trouble and distress payments, provide training for staff, and improve practice. The Council will also complete a register to identify whether anyone else in its locality has been affected.
Summary: Mr B complains, on his wife’s behalf, that the Council has wrongly assessed his wife’s contribution to the cost of her residential care and refuses to carry out a full financial assessment. The Ombudsman cannot question the Council’s decision to charge Mrs B for her residential care, because he has found no fault in the way the Council has assessed Mrs B’s capital with regard to the regulations
Summary: The Ombudsman’s decision is that the care provider was not at fault when it advised it could not provide care for Mrs X after she left hospital.
Summary: Mrs B complains about the Council’s decision to move her sister-in-law, Ms C, to another care home just before she died. Mrs B says the Council did not involve Ms C’s family in the decision and caused upset when it said Ms C’s siblings did not have a close relationship with her. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the Council’s actions because Ms C had to be moved urgently as her health rapidly deteriorated and she required registered nursing care. The Council would have made the same decision if it had involved Ms C’s family because it was in her best interests as the care home she was in could no longer meet her needs.
Summary: There is no evidence of fault in how the Council handled the Best Interests decision-making process with regard to the complainant’s wife, or several related matters. There was fault which caused a minor injustice in its handling of his request for amendments to her care and support plan, but the Ombudsman does not consider there is any further action for the Council to take. He has therefore completed his investigation.
Summary: Mr X complains the Council delayed completing major adaptations necessary for his wife’s safety, causing them both distress and resulting in her untimely death. The Ombudsman does not find fault in the Council’s handling of adaptations but finds the Council failed to communicate properly with Mr X. The Ombudsman recommends the Council provides an apology and payment to Mr X.
Summary: The Council was at fault for the delay in completing a financial assessment, for a person’s contribution to their care fees, which led to an unexpected backdated bill. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by writing off the backdated charges.
Summary: Mrs C complains on behalf of her son, Mr B, that the Council did not deal with his application for a blue badge properly. The Council was not at fault.
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision not to do a financial assessment and backdate funding for Mrs Q’s residential care after she died. There is no evidence of fault by the Council affecting its decision. We cannot therefore criticise it.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint that the Council has failed to include all her son’s, Mr B’s, Disability Related Expenditure (DRE) in his financial assessment. This is because there is no evidence of fault having caused a significant enough injustice to Mr B warranting an Ombudsman investigation.
Summary: There was no fault in the decision not to conduct a Safeguarding Adults Review because Mr B’s case did not meet the criteria for one. There was fault in dealing with Ms A’s correspondence as a complaint because she had not made one, a delay in signing off a safeguarding enquiry report and confusion caused by the Safeguarding Adults Board reversing its initial decision. When Ms A later complained, the Council took longer to respond than it should have done. The fault caused Ms A and Mr B avoidable distress. The Council will apologise within one month and take action to complete the independent learning review within two months.
Summary: The Ombudsman’s has not found evidence of fault by the care provider regarding concerns Mrs K raised about the live in carer and about giving notice regarding the contract.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A’s complaint about the Council’s failure to communicate properly with her as Mr B’s attorney. This is because the Council has investigated Ms A’s concerns and made recommendations regarding future decision-making processes. The Ombudsman is satisfied the Council has identified learning from its investigation and could achieve no more than this even if he investigated.
Summary: Mrs F complains the Council did not properly assess her care and support needs and has failed to meet her needs. The Ombudsman has found fault. The Council has agreed to re-assess Mrs F’s care and support needs and make a payment to acknowledge the distress caused.
Summary: Mrs X complains about a care provider’s handling of her father’s care. She complains the care provider did not assess her father’s care needs properly, did not arrange a suitable care package, and did not check the carer’s notes before she left. The Ombudsman finds fault with the care provider for failing to provide appropriate care and for its poor record keeping. We recommended the care provider apologise to Mrs X, pay her a financial remedy, and improve its procedures and practices.
Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council refused her application for a blue badge for her son. The Council has accepted fault and has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and arrange an independent mobility assessment. The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation on this basis.
Summary: Mr Y complains the Council has failed to take account of Mrs X’s housing costs when assessing her finances and deciding how much she can afford to pay towards her care. There has been no fault by the Council affecting its decision.
Summary: The Ombudsman has discontinued our investigation into Mrs B’s complaint. The Council has reconsidered her daughter’s disabled parking badge application using the new government guidance, and has agreed to issue a badge, so it is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome.
Summary: The investigation into Mrs X’s and Mrs Y’s complaint about care fees for their late mother will be discontinued. Any investigation by the Ombudsman would not achieve any greater remedy than has already been offered by the Council.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint about the way the Council conducted a safeguarding meeting regarding her late uncle’s, Mr B’s, care. This is because further investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to provide a different outcome to that Mr and Mrs A have already received and could not provide them with the outcome they want. The injustice caused to Mr and Mrs A from the actions of the Council ls not significant enough to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint that his mother, Mrs B, was not properly assessed for Continuing Health Care (CHC) funding and so she should not pay for her care. This is because Mr A can ask the NHS to consider a retrospective health care assessment if he believes Mrs B met the criteria for health care funding. In the absence of confirmation from the NHS agreeing payment for Mrs B, the Ombudsman could not say there is any fault with the Council for charging for her care.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint that the Council did not comply with the Ombudsman’s recommendations from a previous complaint he made. This is because the Ombudsman is satisfied the recommendations he made were implemented and completed his investigation.
Summary: The Council reduced Miss Y’s support hours before enablement support established if she could achieve independence in some aspects of her life. When she was unable to achieve/maintain independence the Council failed to address this. Consequently, Miss X has some unmet eligible needs.
Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his father, Mr D. Mr X complained the Council failed to safeguard Mr D following a mental health assessment and as a result he attempted suicide. The Council was not at fault. It considered the Community Psychiatric Nurse’s assessment of Mr D, carried out a needs assessment and arranged a care package. The Council could not have foreseen or prevented Mr D from attempting suicide prior to the care package beginning. The Council was at fault for a delay in handling Mr X’s complaint and for a lack of detail in Mr D’s risk assessment, which did not cause an injustice.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint about her late father’s, Mr B’s, care provider failing to apply for a fast track Continuing Health Care (CHC) assessment for him. This is because the injustice Mrs A claims is not from the actions of the care provider and Mrs A can ask the NHS to consider a retrospective assessment.
Summary: The Council was at fault in not taking into account Miss X’s comments in its draft safeguarding report in respect of a care home where her mother Mrs X had been a resident. The Council has apologised and agreed it should take Miss X’s comments into account. I have not asked for any further remedy.
Summary: The Ombudsmen found fault by a Council’s social care assessment process and the support provided to a carer. The Council has already accepted the fault and agreed to pay £300 to recognise the anxiety and distress caused by the fault. The Ombudsmen has not found fault by an NHS Trust relating to the mental health support it offered. There was no fault with the Council’s complaint handling.
Summary: Mr X complains that the Council overcharged Mrs Y for her care; he says she did not receive the care agreed and it charged too much. The Ombudsman finds the Council was not at fault in the way it charged for the care. It was at fault because Mrs Y did not always receive the service she needed and this caused her distress. It was also at fault in its handling of the complaints but this did not cause significant injustice. It has already put right any injustice it caused because it did not backdate an increase in charges as it was entitled to do.
Summary: Mrs B complains that the Council has not considered her blue badge application and appeals properly. The Ombudsman considers that there was fault in the process which calls into question the robustness of the Council’s decision. The Council has agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendation that it undertake a fresh Independent Mobility Assessment.
Summary: The Council acknowledges there was a delay in undertaking the financial assessment for Mrs X’s care charges and has now offered to waive the charges incurred. That is a satisfactory way to remedy any injustice caused to Mrs X.
Summary: Mrs B complains Penhurst Gardens Care Home failed to look after her husband properly, resulting in a rapid decline in his condition. The Care Home’s records do not support the claim that it caused the decline in Mr B’s condition.
Summary: Mrs D complains on behalf of Mrs E that HC-One Oval Homes did not provide the residential care Mrs E paid for. Mrs D says Mrs E’s care home neglected her and gave her an insulin overdose. The Ombudsman has found HC-One Oval Homes at fault. HC-One Oval Homes has agreed to reimburse Mrs E half her care home fees, give staff training and develop an action plan to ensure policies are put into practice.
Summary: There was fault in the Council’s handling of a request for a care assessment, as it delayed completing the assessment for nearly four years. This has caused a serious injustice, which the Council has agreed to remedy. It has also agreed to review its handling of the matter to determine the reason behind the delay.
Summary: Mr X complains the Council has decided not to renew his stepson’s (Mr Y’s) blue badge. During our investigation, the Council agreed to issue Mr Y a blue badge. We have discontinued the investigation as it is unlikely further investigation would achieve a better outcome.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about adaptations to her home for her disabled son. The Council has agreed to reassess the case and thereafter to consider her complaint should she remain unhappy.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about care provided to a woman by a care home, or the safeguarding investigation undertaken by a local authority. This is because it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add anything to the investigations that have already been carried out by the organisations involved and other relevant agencies.
Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of his mother, Mrs Y about the way the Council handled the Disabled Facilities Grant process which funded adaptations to her home. He says the work to carry out the adaptations was delayed and completed to a poor standard. The Council has already admitted it was at fault for the way it handled this process, but the Ombudsman has found the extent of the injustice that Mr X and Mrs Y were caused is unclear. Consequently, we recommend the Council commissions an independent surveyor to assess the work that has been undertaken, in order to determine whether any remedial work needs to be carried out. We also recommend that it assesses the injustice caused once this inspection is complete and considers whether to make a payment to Mr X and Mrs Y for any distress and inconvenience they were caused. The Council has agreed to carry out these recommendations.
Summary: Mrs X complains about the care her father-in-law received at a Care Home run by the Council. He did not receive all the pain relief he was entitled to. The Council needs to apologise, pay financial redress and consider what action the Care Home needs to take to improve its management of medication.
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in its role as Deputy, because it lies outside his jurisdiction. Complaints about Deputies are considered by the Office of the Public Guardian.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about care provided to a woman by a care home, or the safeguarding investigation undertaken by a local authority. This is because it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add anything to the investigations that have already been carried out by the organisations involved and other relevant agencies.
Summary: Ms Y complained on behalf of Ms X, that the Council’s response to her complaint, failed to address concerns about how it supported her. The Council also failed to respond to Ms X’s request for a review of the response. The Council is at fault. It has agreed to complete a further review of the complaint.
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.
