Summary: There was no fault in the Council charging Mr E for home care after he left hospital as he was not receiving enablement care and Mrs E received appropriate information about charging.
Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council dealt with a contractor she used to carry out works under a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). She also complained that the Council failed to monitor the progress and quality of the works properly. The work the Council funded was part of a larger project Ms X funded privately. The Council was not at fault in relation to the DFG. I have discontinued my investigation into part of the complaint as it concerns building control and the Ombudsman could not achieve the outcome Ms X is looking for.
Summary: The Care Provider was at fault because it did not issue a written contract for Mr D’s care, gave Ms C, his representative, different figures for the charge verbally, did not send timely invoices and failed to explain how it treated funded nursing care payments. This caused Ms C avoidable confusion and uncertainty. To remedy the injustice, the Care Provider should refund Ms C part of the fee and apologise within one month of this statement.
Summary: The Ombudsmen will not investigate Ms T’s complaint about the care of her father from 2015 to November 2017. The complaints are late and there are insufficient grounds to accept them now.
Summary: There was fault by the Council in its financial assessment of Ms C’s care charge. It did not consider her disability related expenditure and delayed in completing a review. To remedy the injustice, it will, within one month, apologise, complete the review, backdate any allowances to June 2017, agree a affordable repayment plan for the debt and pay Ms C £100 to reflect her avoidable distress.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A’s late complaint about the Council’s lack of communication with her about her brother-in law’s, Mr B’s care. This is because Ms A could have come to the Ombudsman sooner if she was concerned about the Council’s communication with her. Mr B died in 2017 so the Ombudsman cannot remedy any injustice to Mr B even if he investigated and found the fault Ms A alleges.
Summary: The complainant says the Council took from 2015 to consider, commission and manage grant aided adaptations to her home. The complainant says this is too long and as a result she has lived with excessive pain when using her kitchen and bathroom. The Council says it offered a financial remedy for faults and is progressing with the renewed application received in 2017. It says some delay has been due to adjustments to proposals to reflect the complainant’s wishes and because of her prolonged absences from home. The Ombudsman finds the Council acted with fault and recommends a remedy.
Summary: The care provider has acknowledged faults in the actions of some staff and offered a refund of fees in recognition. There were other incidents where Mr X came to harm in the home as a result of actions by other residents or himself and the care provider took appropriate action.
Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his father, Mr Y about the Council’s decision that Mr Y has deliberately deprived himself of assets to avoid paying care costs. There was no fault in how the Council made this decision. It followed its policy, guidance and legislation to make this decision.
Summary: Mr C complains about the way the Council dealt with a safeguarding concern raised about the care home for which he is the managing director. I have completed my investigation on the basis that there was no fault in the way the Council dealt with the matter.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint the Council has not re-assessed his needs for housing, care and support for a long time, and he needs more than the support he receives three days per week. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing Mr B injustice, so an investigation is not warranted.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A’s complaint that the Council has failed to safeguard her mother, Mrs B, from her abusive husband. This is because Mrs B has not consented to Ms A complaining to the Ombudsman on her behalf and Ms A has asked the Ombudsman not to proceed with her complaint.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint the Council is seeking to recover an unpaid debt for care charges from his late father’s estate and in particular from the sale proceeds of the family home which is still occupied by Mr B’s sister, who has disabilities. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing Mr B and his family injustice, so it does not warrant the Ombudsman investigating.
Summary: The Ombudsmen found no fault by a Council and GP Practice in terms of the care provided to an elderly woman in hospital and a nursing home. The Ombudsmen found fault with the Trust’s failure to arrange a heart scan but are satisfied this did not have a significant impact on the woman’s care.
Summary: The Ombudsmen found no fault by a Council and GP Practice in terms of the care provided to an elderly woman in hospital and a nursing home. The Ombudsmen found fault with the Trust’s failure to arrange a heart scan but are satisfied this did not have a significant impact on the woman’s care.
Summary: Mr X complains of failure by the Council to meet his needs as a disabled asylum seeker, causing him hardship. There was no fault by the Council because it met its duty to offer assistance for the needs it assessed.
Summary: Mr X complains about delay in dealing with a disabled facilities grant application. He says the process took much longer than it should and the Council refused to include a bath in the plans; this caused much frustration and pain. The Ombudsman finds the Council was not at fault.
Summary: Mr X complains the Council expects him to pay a financial contribution towards his care. He also says it failed to support him properly while he was in a temporary care placement and has not properly considered his requests to move from his current flat. The Ombudsman found there was fault when a care provider commissioned by the Council withdrew an offer of care for Mr X at very short notice. This partially interrupted his care package for around 10 days. There was no fault in how the Council conducted a financial assessment of Mr X or in its involvement in his ongoing housing arrangements.
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council’s commissioned care provider stopped her mother’s, Mrs Y’s medication and lied about how this occurred. When Mrs X complained it gave Mrs Y notice causing them distress and anxiety and they had to find an alternative care home at short notice. The care provider was at fault for stopping medication without checking with a GP. This did not cause significant harm to Mrs Y but caused some confusion. The care provider was entitled to give notice to Mrs Y. The care provider has already amended its medication procedures. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X for the confusion caused.
Summary: Mrs B is unhappy with the way a social worker conducted an adult social care review; I find no fault in the review. The Council revised Mr C’s support plan but did not follow up within 6-8 weeks to check the plan was adequately working. Because of this Mr C’s social needs have not been met for the last year. The Council will apologise, pay Mr C £113.75, and make procedural changes.
Summary: The Ombudsmen found North Somerset Council’s flawed safeguarding enquiry into Mrs D’s care and support caused Mrs C distress and uncertainty. St George’s Nursing Home’s (the Home) poor record keeping of Mrs D’s fluid intake and pressure sore care caused Mrs C uncertainty. The Home should remedy the distress Mrs C suffered when she found an antibiotic next to Mrs D’s bed. The Ombudsmen also found Bristol, North Somerset & South Gloucestershire Clinical Commissioning Group compounded Mrs C’s distress by significantly delaying handling her complaint.
Summary: The complaint is about the transfer of Ms A’s care when she moved from Hertfordshire to Kent. There was fault by both councils. Hertfordshire failed to review Ms A’s care and support plan. And Kent failed to complete a full assessment or care and support plan and failed to explain the difference in its personal budget. Both councils actions caused Ms A avoidable distress. Each council will apologise and pay her £150.
Summary: The complaint is about the transfer of Ms A’s care when she moved from Hertfordshire to Kent. There was fault by both councils. Hertfordshire failed to review Ms A’s care and support plan. And Kent failed to complete a full assessment or care and support plan and failed to explain the difference in its personal budget. Both councils actions caused Ms A avoidable distress. Each council will apologise and pay her £150.
Summary: The Ombudsmen found faults in safeguarding Mrs D’s mother Mrs F, assessing Mrs F and her husband, and in responding to Mrs D’s complaint. The Council and Trust have already accepted there were faults and apologised. This is an appropriate way to address the injustice to Mrs D’s family. The Council and Trust have also improved services since Mrs D’s complaint. Some of their process and information remain flawed, so we have recommended service improvements. The Council and Trust accept our recommendations, so the Ombudsmen have completed their investigation.
Summary: Mr D complains the Council failed to meet his care and support needs. The Ombudsman has found fault causing injustice. He Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr D to acknowledge the distress caused.
Summary: The Council and Trust have already acknowledged they failed to assess Mr F as a carer and failed to provide him with support. The Council has accepted our recommendation to provide an apology. The Trust has accepted our recommendation to issue staff guidance. The Ombudsmen have therefore completed their investigation.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s financial assessment. This is because her complaint is late and I have not exercised discretion to investigate it. If Mrs B disagrees with the Council’s most recent financial assessment for reasons she has not previously raised, it is reasonable to expect her to appeal to the Council against it.
Summary: The Care Provider which acted for the Council failed to deliver two to one support for Mr B. This was not in line with the agreed plan of care and was fault causing avoidable distress. The Council will apologise within one month of my final decision. We do not uphold other complaints about Mr B’s care.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint about the Council distributing minutes of a meeting she says are inaccurate and not reflective of what was said. This is because Mrs A can ask the Council to put a copy of her views on file and if she is concerned the minutes contain incorrect data about her, she can ask the Information Commissioner’s office (ICO) to consider her complaint.
Summary: the care provider acknowledges it failed to update its information about Mrs X and so did not provide her with proper care and treatment during her stay. It has now apologised, reviewed its procedures and offered a full refund of her fees. That is a suitable remedy for the injustice suffered.
Summary: Miss X complains the Council left her struggling to care for her mother for three months. The Ombudsman finds the Council failed to arrange a care package promptly, causing injustice. The Ombudsman recommends the Council provides an apology and makes a payment to Miss X in recognition of the distress she suffered.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the sale of a property in 2004. The complaint is made too late but we could not, in any case, carry out a meaningful investigation after so long.
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.
