Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s failure to arrange a permanent residential placement for her adult son and the emergency placement it organised was unsuitable. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters.

Summary: Ms X says the Council’s response to safeguarding concerns she raised about her daughter was inadequate. There was fault by the Council because it did not properly respond to Ms X’s reports. The Council agreed to review the actions of its social workers and provide a financial remedy to Ms X to reflect the uncertainty about the outcome.

Summary: The Council did not carry out regular financial reassessments of a service users ability to contribute towards day centre care costs. There is evidence that it told the user of changes to a direct debit amount and that she needed to pay the cost of the day centre. The Council’s offer to backdate a financial assessment and to replay any fees charged when the user did not attend, along with a £250 payment for time and trouble remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: Mrs R says the Council delayed inexcusably in finding a suitable care placement for her son, Mr C. The Council was at fault. This fault caused Mr C and Mrs R distress. The Council has now found new accommodation for Mr C and apologised to Mrs R. It has agreed to apologise to Mr C and pay both sums to remedy its fault.

Summary: There was a discrepancy between the complaints made by Mrs A about her father’s care and the wishes of Mr X. The care provider attempted to resolve the complaints, offered to change the carer and offered a fee reduction as a gesture of goodwill, but without success.

Summary: The Council did not properly consider all the relevant facts, and follow statutory guidance, before deciding that Mrs X’s mother had deliberately deprived herself of capital assets in order to avoid, or reduce, her contribution to residential care charges. The Council has now reviewed the evidence, decided not to apply the notional capital rules and sent Mrs X new financial assessments. It has apologised to Mrs X and provided a financial remedy to recognise her time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.

Summary: The Council failed to ensure a safeguarding investigation carried out by another Council into the care the late Mrs Y received at a care home, was completed properly. It failed to take adequate action to chase the progress and outcome of the investigation. Consequently, any poor care may have gone unchallenged. This may have had implications for Mrs Y and other residents. The Council also failed to communicate with Mrs Y’s daughter and failed to deal with her complaints properly.

Summary: The Council failed to follow its policy when recouping an overpayment of direct payments from Mrs X’s account by failing to notify her of the amount it would recoup and when. This is fault. The Council has agreed to make service improvements and to provide Mrs X with a payment of £150 and an apology for failing to adequately address her concerns raised in her complaints.

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his mother, Ms Y about the care provided to her and about the care provider’s response to a fall. There was no fault in the care provider’s actions to consider Ms Y’s care needs, comply with medical professional advice after her fall or decision not to notify the Care Quality Commission.

Summary: Mr X complains The Hawthornes care home did not care for his parents properly and failed to treat them as individuals during a respite stay in 2018. The Ombudsman finds the Care Provider’s failure to properly explore and assess Mr X’s parents’ needs before their admission directly contributed to the later difficulties it had providing personal care to Mr X’s mother. This was fault. The Care Provider has agreed to apologise, refund some of the fees paid and consider how it can improve its pre-admission assessment process.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s management of her daughter’s (Miss D’s) support. There is fault in way the Council handled D’s financial support. This caused distress for Miss D and Mrs X. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s refusal of a blue badge. The Council is at fault for not explaining its reasons for refusing in its decision letter. This did not cause an injustice because Mrs X telephone the Council and it explained its reasons. The Council should review its processes to make sure it tells applicants the reasons for refusing a blue badge.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not assess him properly before it rejected his application and appeal for the renewal of his blue badge. He says its decision has stopped him leaving the house and has made him feel depressed. He wants it to reconsider his application and reinstate his badge. The Ombudsman has found the Council was not at fault because it considered Mr X’s application and appeal in line with the guidance issued by the Department for Transport.

Summary: The Ombudsmen will not investigate this complaint about the circumstances surrounding the detention of the complainant under the Mental Health Act. This is because some of the matters the complainant raises do not fall under the Ombudsmen’s jurisdiction. The complainant’s other concerns relate to care provided more than 12 months ago. These matters are late for the Ombudsmen’s consideration.

Summary: Ms B complains about the Council’s delay in determining the Disabled Facilities Grant for her child in 2017. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because the events complained about happened too long ago to be investigated now and so fall outside our jurisdiction.

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 Ms A’s complaint about care provided to her daughter, Ms B. This is because the Council’s actions have not caused a significant enough injustice to Ms A or Ms B warranting an investigation. The Council has apologised for the mix up with her dental appointment and the Ombudsman is satisfied this remedies any injustice caused.

Summary: On behalf of his mother, Mr B complains about Council charges for a cleaning service provided to her in 2013. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it falls outside our jurisdiction as the events complained about happened too long ago to be investigated now.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not consider Ms A’s complaints about decisions taken by her late father’s, Mr B’s, care provider. This is because sadly Mr B is now deceased so the Ombudsman cannot remedy any injustice to him.

Summary: Mr B complained about delay by the Council in deciding his application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. The Ombudsman finds the Council acted appropriately to progress matters associated with the grant application in order to reach a properly considered decision, after queries arose about what was necessary and appropriate to meet Mr B’s needs.

Summary: The complainant says the Council failed to give her husband financial support towards his residential care when it should have done, did not provide her with appropriate advice and should have challenged her decision to self-fund his residential care. The Ombudsman has not found evidence of fault by the Council and for this reason he has ended his consideration of this complaint.

Summary: Mr B complains the Council failed to take appropriate and timely action to support his need for disabled adaptations to his home. The Ombudsman finds that the Council acted without fault in consideration of his needs for disabled adaptations. There were minor delays, in responding to some emails for example, but these did not lead to significant injustice for Mr B.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A’s complaint about the behaviour and alleged neglect of a Social Worker who visited her in hospital. This is because it is unlikely he would find enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Social Worker to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mrs Z complains of failings by staff at a care home (the Home) when her grandmother, Mrs X, suffered a broken hip after an incident with another resident and was unable to return to the Home. She says Mrs X has suffered as a result of the failings of others. There was some fault in delayed communication and complaint handling, but none in the principal matters complained of.

Summary: Ms X complains that the Council did not assess Ms Y’s needs properly and significantly reduced her support without reason. She says Ms Y was distraught about this. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault causing Ms Y significant distress, time and trouble. It has agreed to pay Ms Y £1200, reinstate her support hours and complete a fresh assessment. It will also take action to prevent similar problems in future.

Summary: The Council failed to properly consider whether it should carry out a safeguarding investigation into the actions of an elderly couple’s carers. The Ombudsman recommends that the Council apologises and pays the family £650.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the care provider’s delay in repaying a significant amount of overpaid care home fees. This is because the care provider repaid the money and apologised to Mr X prior to the Ombudsman investigating. This offers a reasonable remedy for the acknowledged fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of safeguarding concerns regarding the complainant’s ex-partner. This is because the complaint is made late, and there are no good reasons to investigate it now.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to give the complainant a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Council was wrong to disallow a mortgage payment Ms X makes when it carried out the financial assessment for non-residential care services. The Council has now agreed to provide a suitable remedy so we have ended our investigation.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his son’s new placement. Mr X said the Council did not get his agreement to the new placement. Mr X also complains his son’s new social worker has not contacted him. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to update Mr X on his son’s new placement. We do not find fault with the Council’s other actions. The Council has agreed to apologise.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council sent him a bill for care charges in a format he could not understand and without telling him it had carried out an assessment. On the evidence seen, the Council was at fault. It has remedied the injustice caused by cancelling the care charges from its bill and by refunding some of the charges Mr X paid for his care.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council has failed to deal properly with the request to repay funds from her late mother’s direct payment account. There is no evidence of fault by the Council over its request.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council has dealt with a financial matter related to her late uncle Mr Y’s estate. The Council has apologised for faults in the process, which is the outcome the Ombudsman would have sought had it not already been provided. For the Ombudsman to find the Council is causing distress to Mr Y’s beneficiaries due to fault, he would need to decide it is unlawful for it to be pursuing money it believes they owe from the estate. The Ombudsman cannot determine such legal questions.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the care provider’s attempt to recover money relating to her late mother’s care. We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint because court action concerning the matter has started.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about the Council’s actions regarding his aunt’s, Mrs B’s, property. This is because the court appointed the Council as deputy for Mrs B’s finances and concerns about the way the Council is managing this role is for the Office of the Public Guardian to consider.

Summary: A woman complained about a council’s handling of her complaint. The Council has apologised for the upset she was caused by its handling of her complaint. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is nothing further an investigation could add.

Summary: Miss B complained the Council failed to properly assess her father for a blue badge. There was some fault in the process. The Council agreed to obtain some additional information and review its decision.

Summary: Mrs C complains the Council is failing in its legal duties to support her adult daughter who is deaf-blind which means she remained in an unsuitable placement for longer than necessary. The Ombudsman has ended his investigation as we do not have the consent of Mrs C’s daughter.

Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain the Council did not provide proper support and information when Mrs B’s mother, Mrs X, was to be discharged from hospital. That meant they were liable for a top up payment for care fees which they cannot afford. There was fault by the Council in not providing written information to Mr and Mrs B about the options for Mrs X’s care and the associated costs. The action the Council has agreed to take provides a satisfactory resolution of the complaint.

Summary: Ms D complains about the way in which the Council dealt with her sister’s request for adaptations, in particular the time it has taken to agree to carry out an extension to her property and put this in place. The Ombudsman found there was a delay by the Council in allocating Ms X’s case to an Occupational Therapist (OT) and carrying out the assessment visit. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X. It has also recently implemented changes to speed up the OT allocation and assessment process.

Summary: It was not the responsibility of the care provider to diagnose a fracture when Dr X fell but it should have sought medical attention sooner. It failed to respond to her reasonable wishes. It will now apologise to her and review its procedures.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council wrongly refused to renew her blue badge. We find it failed to carry out an independent face-to-face mobility assessment as required by guidance and its policy. It has agreed to carry out an assessment and, as a result of another Ombudsman investigation, it is reviewing its approach and considering whether others are affected by this fault. It will also pay Mrs X £250 to remedy her time and trouble making this complaint. These are appropriate actions to remedy the injustice to Mrs X and prevent reoccurrence.

Summary: Ms C complains about the Council’s decision that her elderly mother should move from the care home where she was settled, into Flexicare Housing. The Ombudsman has decided to uphold Ms C’s complaint. The Council has agreed to provide an apology to Ms C and pay a financial remedy for the distress she experienced.

Summary: Mr S complains the Home failed to provide adequate care to his late mother-in-law Mrs D, causing distress to Mrs D and her family and potentially contributing to her death. The Ombudsmen’s view is there is no evidence of fault causing injustice to Mrs D.

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his mother in law, Mrs A. Mr X complained Mrs A should not have to pay the full care fees for periods during 2012 to 2018 when the Care Quality Commission rated Mrs A’s care home below standard. The Council was not at fault. Care home fees are not linked to Care Quality Commission ratings, and there was no evidence that Mrs A received poor care during those periods to warrant a reduction in her care home fees.

Summary: The Complainant says the Council has increased his client contribution for adult care services, which he cannot afford to pay. The change leaves Mr C with no disposable income, but this is not caused by fault of the Council. The Council has correctly assessed his client contribution in accordance with the law and national guidance and considered whether to allow a waiver based on his income and expenditure.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council wrongly decided to send his mother home from a care home, causing her avoidable suffering. He also complains Council officers acted unprofessionally, causing him distress. The Ombudsman finds fault in the Council’s decision making process, causing Mr X distress and uncertainty. We recommend the Council makes a payment to remedy this. The Council has accepted its staff acted unprofessionally. The Ombudsman is satisfied with the Council’s actions to remedy this.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the care provided at a care home and the Council’s response to the complaint. This is because further investigation could not add anything to the responses by the Care Home and the Council or provided the outcomes that the complainant seeks.