Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of himself and his daughter that the Council did not carry out an adequate assessment of his daughter’s care needs in 2016, delayed in reassessing her care needs, failed to consider arrangements for her care needs in the absence of her personal assistants, failed to consider if she had an eligible need for short breaks, failed to make backdated direct payments and a one off direct payment as it agreed to do and did not properly deal with his complaint.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has decided not to renew her son’s (Mr Y’s) blue badge. There is no fault in how the Council reached its decision.

Summary: The Council failed to always respond to requests from a care provider for extra support for one of the people using its service. The Council failed to always respond to requests for reviews of that person’s support plan. The care provider increased support, even though the Council had not assessed extra support was needed. Although the Council did not always reply to correspondence, when it did complete reviews it did not find extra support was required, so will not pay for the additional support the care provider put in place. I find communication was poor, so raised the care providers expectations. The Council will apologise, pay £250 and remind staff to respond in a timely and thorough way.

Summary: Mrs B complains about the Council’s actions in respect of billing for home care after her father was discharged from hospital. She also complains about the time taken by the Council to respond to her complaint. The Ombudsman finds there was fault by the Council in these matters. As a result, Mrs B was put to considerable time and trouble in seeking to resolve the matter, and her father received an unexpected invoice for care costs followed by threats of formal recovery action when that invoice was disputed. A remedy has been agreed.

Summary: A woman complained about the way in which her father was discharged from hospital to a care home. The Ombudsmen will not investigate the complaint because it is late.

Summary: There were delays in reviewing Mr A’s needs and resolving concerns about transport expenses but they have not been wholly due to the Council. The Council was wrong to tell Mr and Mrs X the previous assessment papers had been lost as that caused considerable anxiety. There was also a delay in making Direct Payments to Mrs X in her role as carer.

Summary: Ms R says, on behalf of her daughter Ms C, that the Council miscalculated her required financial contribution for her adult social care. She also says the Council unjustifiably reduced Ms C’s care package leaving a financial shortfall of some £1800 which Ms R had to pay. Ms R also says the Council refused to discuss Ms C’s care with her by phone even though she has been her main carer all her life. The Council was at fault. It should pay Ms C and Ms R sums in recognition of fault, and apologise to Ms R.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A’s complaint about the Council’s safeguarding investigation into the care her late father, Mr B, received from his care provider. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council and further investigation by the Ombudsman could not make a finding of the kind Ms A wants. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A’s complaint about the way the Council handled her complaints. This is because where he is not investigating the substantive matter he will not usually investigate how a Council has responded to a complaint about it. That it the case here.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council failed to carry out a reassessment of her mother’s needs within the timeframe agreed in her previous complaint to the Ombudsman. This is because the Council completed the reassessment shortly after we received this complaint and so the matter now appears to be resolved.

Summary: Ms P complained that a care home and GP practice failed to properly respond to her father Mr D’s ill health, which put him at unnecessary risk. On another occasion, a nurse at the care home failed to call an ambulance in time, reducing his chance of surviving the infection he died of. Further, that a council failed to carry out safeguarding investigations adequately. The Ombudsmen find some fault with the response of the GP practice and care home in the first incident, which caused Ms P distress. In the second incident the nurse failed to call an ambulance in time which reduced Mr D’s chance of surviving. The Ombudsmen recommend action to address this. They find no fault with the safeguarding investigations.

Summary: Ms P complained that a care home and GP practice failed to properly respond to her father Mr D’s ill health, which put him at unnecessary risk. On another occasion, a nurse at the care home failed to call an ambulance in time, reducing his chance of surviving the infection he died of. Further, that a council failed to carry out safeguarding investigations adequately. The Ombudsmen find some fault with the response of the GP practice and care home in the first incident, which caused Ms P distress. In the second incident the nurse failed to call an ambulance in time which reduced Mr D’s chance of surviving. The Ombudsmen recommend action to address this. They find no fault with the safeguarding investigations.

Summary: Ms X says the manager of the care home where she resides unlawfully restricted her from visiting the home of her friend. She also complains that the care home failed to investigate her complaint about the matter. Ms X suffered significant injustice because of the actions of the care home. The care home accepted fault and agreed a financial remedy for the injustice to Ms X.

Summary: Mr Y and Miss D complained for Mr P about the Council’s delays and reduction in care following a review of Mr P’s care plan. They also complained about the lack of support and communication about a new prepayment card. The Ombudsman has found the Council at fault for delay in completing the review of Mr P’s care and support plan and the inaccurate information it provided about its managed account scheme for direct payments. This caused unnecessary uncertainty for Mr Y, Miss D and Mr P. The Council has agreed to apologise which resolves the injustice caused by this fault to Mr Y, Miss D and to Mr P.

Summary: The Council apologised for forgetting to tell Mr X about arrangements to attend an exhibition of visual aids but will make a small payment in recognition that this may have lost him the opportunity to find useful products. It has now provided a low-level light with magnifier for him. There is no evidence the Council dealt differently with Mr X because of his complaint although he complains staff would not enter his house because of the building works.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to engage an independent advocate for Mr Y and failed to help him return from a care home, causing distress and financial loss. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault. The Ombudsman is satisfied with the apology and financial remedy already provided by the Council. The Ombudsman recommends the Council also takes action to minimise the risk of recurrence.

Summary: Mr B complains about the care his late mother received. The Provider failed to administer her medication properly, it did not encourage her to rise for breakfast, gave him false information about this, and did not address his concerns properly at the time. The Provider’s actions caused Mrs Y and the family injustice. It should refund half the fees paid by Mrs Y to her estate. It should also pay £500 to Mr B in recognition of the distress it caused him.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about care charges for his late father. This is because it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would achieve anything more for Mr X.

Summary: The Council failed to properly complete a care needs assessment, despite a duty to do so under the Care Act 2014. We cannot know if the Council would have provided Mr C with support services if it had properly done the assessment. The Council will apologise, pay £350, complete an assessment now, and ensure it properly completes assessments in future.

Summary: Mrs C complains that the Council’s failure to process her request for direct payments and respond promptly to her request for help with short-term residential care contributed towards her mother having to move into full-time residential care. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether the Council’s actions contributed towards Mrs D’s needs for long-term residential care. The Ombudsman considers that the steps the Council has already taken represent an appropriate response to the injustice which has resulted from failings in the Council’s handling of these events.

Summary: The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation of this complaint, about standards of care, professional boundaries and the handling of the complainant’s money, because the Care Provider has agreed to review its own investigation.

Summary: Mrs B complained that her father, Mr C, received poor respite care in a care home for a short period in December 2018. We cannot find fault with the actions of 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.