Summary: Ms B complains the Council failed to properly assess her mother’s care needs and wrongly decided she only needs two hours care each day. We find the Council’s decisions were not affected by fault. This means we cannot say the Council’s decisions were right or wrong. We have completed our investigation.
Summary: Ms B complained the Council unreasonably backdated a charge for permanent nursing care and failed to respond to her correspondence. The Council delayed changing the status of the caring arrangements and in carrying out a financial assessment. That meant Ms B and her family were faced with a large backdated bill. The Council also delayed responding to Ms B’s correspondence which led to her going to time and trouble to pursue the complaint. An apology, agreement to cancel the increased charges between February 2017 and August 2017 and a payment to Ms B is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.
Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council reviewed his care package. There is no fault in the way the Council reached its decision to stop his direct payments for the gym and not to pay him a contingency amount. The Council was not at fault for deciding not to increase Mrs X’s care package but there was a lack of records around its funding panel’s decision making and how Mr X was advised of this. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and review its procedures around recording Panel meetings and the outcomes.
Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s refusal to allow privately funded care costs as disability related expenditure and faults with her care and financial assessments. The Ombudsman has not found fault in what the Council did. Its assessments were in line with relevant law and policy.
Summary: Mr B complains the Council did not review his mother’s care package for several months after he raised concerns. He says he could not provide the level of care his mother needed and this caused him distress and physical injury. The Ombudsman finds the Council is at fault for delays in arranging a review.
Summary: The Ombudsman should not pursue this complaint about Mrs C’s move between care homes because there is insufficient evidence the Council’s alleged faults caused significant injustice so an investigation is not warranted.
Summary: The complainant says the Council failed to issue invoices so she could pay her care costs. The complainant also says the Council did not apply money she paid to the correct accounts. The complaint says this led to a significant debt which the complainant finds difficult to repay. The Council says it issued invoices and reviewed the complainant’s finances according to law and regulations, but the complainant failed to pay enough through standing orders each month to cover her care costs. The Council finally issued a Letter before Action to recover the growing debt. The complainant also complains the Council failed to provide care services when she left hospital or investigate complaints or theft by officers visiting her property. The Council says it provided care within two days and investigated her concerns but without further information it could not reach a decision. The Ombudsman finds the Council acted without fault in allowing the complainant time to repay the debt and investigating her other concerns.
Summary: The Council significantly delayed completing an assessment of Mr B’s social care needs, failed to complete a support plan before reducing his personal budget and failed to properly involve Mr B in the assessment and support planning process. The Council also reneged on an agreement to provide an independent social worker to support Mr B to carry out a self-assessment and it failed to properly deal with his complaints. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr B and take action to prevent similar failings in future.
Summary: Mr X complains about the sudden increase in Mrs Y’s contribution to care from zero to £198 per week and about the way the Council dealt with his complaints about this. He says it has caused much stress, anxiety and financial hardship. The Ombudsman finds the Council was not at fault in the change to its charging policy but was at fault in implementing it without adequate notice. He also finds the Council was at fault in the way it dealt with Mr X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise, reimburse six weeks of contribution in lieu of notice, pay Mr X and Mrs Y £250 each and take action to prevent similar faults in future.
Summary: The Ombudsmen find no fault by a Council and Clinical Commissioning Group in relation to the care and support they provided to a woman with complex care needs.
Summary: Mr X complains of fault in the way the Council re-assessed his care needs and reduced his care package, restricting his ability to organise his daily life. There was no fault by the Council in the way it carried out the assessment.
Summary: Mrs X complained when the Council invoiced her for her late Aunt’s (Mrs Y’s) outstanding care fees. The Council has admitted fault for its delay in sending Mrs Y an invoice for the fees. It has apologised for this delay. The Ombudsman has found no injustice caused by this delay. We have completed our investigation.
Summary: The complainant, whom I will call Mrs X, complains about the domiciliary care provided to her father, Mr Y. The Ombudsman finds the absence of some care records creates uncertainty about the care provided. But the available records show that Mr Y’s care was not always provided in accordance with his support plan. We also find fault with the care provider’s communication with Mrs X and its handling of her complaint. The provider will pay £150 to Mrs X and undertake the other actions listed at the end of this statement.
Summary: There was fault in Miss C’s health and social care assessments: they were delayed and Mr C, her father, did not receive timely copies. This meant he did not have the chance to challenge inaccuracies. As a result, there was a delay in Miss C receiving specialist healthcare to increase her independence. The Council and Trust will apologise, pay Miss C £250 and review the learning disability partnership’s policies and procedures to ensure they refer to current law and guidance.
Summary: There was no fault in the Council refusing to give Ms D a deferred payment agreement or in its decision that Ms D had deliberately deprived herself of assets by giving her house to her daughter.
Summary: Mr X complains about delay in completing an occupational therapy assessment which was essential for an adaptation for Mr Y. He says this caused the process to take much longer than it should, and Mr Y’s needs were not properly met for longer than necessary. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault and recommends it pay Mr Y £350 and ensure assessments are not delayed in future.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about decisions made about the complainant’s husband’s best interests, and the effects of the decision on the complainant. This is because the decisions are out of our jurisdiction as they were made by the Court of Protection and by the police.
Summary: Ms B complains about the behaviour of officers towards her when its Social Services team sought to communicate with a friend who she supports. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation.
Summary: Miss Y complained for herself and her son, Mr D, that the Council delayed in arranging suitable social care to meet Mr D’s needs. She complained the Council failed to tell her that it doubted Mr D had mental capacity and then delayed in getting a new ability test for him. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the council’s actions.
Summary: Mr X complains that the Council did not explain that his mother would be charged for her residential care. He complains that the Council did not correctly complete a financial assessment and handled his complaint poorly. Mr X says letters from bailiffs have caused distress. He says he has spent time and trouble chasing the Council for a response to his complaint, and that the Council’s actions have caused frustration. The Ombudsman finds fault for the Council not keeping proper records of what it told the family about charging for care, and for the way it handled Mr X’s complaint. This caused injustice. The Council has suggested that it apologise to Mr X and make a payment to reflect the injustice. This is a suitable remedy. The Council has also agreed to make service improvements. The Ombudsman does not uphold the part of Mr X’s complaint about the financial assessment because we have found no fault.
Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her mother, Mrs Y. Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of Mrs Y’s non-residential care fees between 2014 and present. The Council was at fault. It failed to carry out a financial assessment of Mrs Y until 2018. The fault led to a large backdated invoice for care fees which caused Mrs Y distress. The Council was also at fault for the delay in invoicing Mrs Y for the care and for its poor complaint handling which caused Mrs Y further distress and frustration. The Council agreed to pay Mrs Y a total of £700 to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused. It also agreed to arrange an appropriate payment plan for Mrs Y to pay the outstanding invoice.
Summary: Mrs X complains about the quality of care provided to her husband, Mr Y. She complains the Care Provider has failed to properly implement conditions attached to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards for Mr Y since October 2016, which related to activities to occupy Mr Y’s time and to manage his interaction with another resident. Mrs X says she had to move Mr Y to another care home in April 2018, when his health and well-being deteriorated further as a result of poor care. Mrs X is unhappy with the Care Provider’s refusal to refund all the upfront fees she paid on Mr Y’s admission. The Care Provider has already offered Mrs X a payment to remedy the faults it identified with her husband’s care and the service to her. The Care Provider has accepted the Ombudsman’s finding of an additional fault and agreed to provide further remedy.
Summary: Mrs C says the care provider contracted by the Council did not administer her mother’s medication properly. There is no fault in how the care provider administered Mrs C’s mother’s medication.
Summary: Mrs X complained Eothen Homes Ltd, acting on behalf of the Council, failed to care properly for her mother, Mrs M. As a result, she developed a serious pressure sore before it was noticed by carers. On the evidence so far, the care home failed to keep complete and detailed records of Mrs M’s care and on balance, it missed opportunities to notice the development of the pressure sore. It also failed to report this as a safeguarding matter in a timely manner to the Council. The Council was at fault in the way it carried out the safeguarding investigation. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X for the distress and uncertainty it caused her, make her a financial payment and carry out procedural changes.
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to properly explain its charging policy and charged her late mother, Mrs Y, for respite and nursing home fees when she believed it would be free. There was no fault in the Council’s decision to charge Mrs Y for respite and nursing home fees. There were faults in the way it invoiced Mrs Y and Mrs X and in the way it responded to Mrs X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X, pay her £200 for the distress and frustration caused by the faults and write to her clearly setting out what is owed for what time period. It has also agreed to review its procedures to ensure care services are ended properly on its systems.
Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his stepfather, Mr D, who is now deceased. Mr X complained about Way Ahead Community Services Limited’s (the care provider) decision to terminate Mr D’s care package at short notice. Mr X said the matter caused Mr D anxiety and confusion. Mr X also complained the care provider’s final invoice was £381 too much. The care provider was not at fault for terminating Mr D’s care package. It made the decision in line with the terms and conditions of the contract and provided Mr X with adequate details and reasons for its decision. The care provider was at fault for issuing an incorrect final invoice which was £381 too much. It agreed to issue Mr X with a fresh invoice.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A’s complaint about the Council placing a charge on the property when it agreed to fund adaptations through a Disabled Facilities Grant in 2015. This is because there is no evidence of fault with the Council’s actions warranting an Ombudsman investigation. Ms A can ask the court to consider whether she is legally liable for the charge on her land and it would be reasonable for her to do this.
Summary: The Council is at fault as it failed to carry out a transition assessment for Miss Y before she was 18, delayed in producing a support plan and adequate care package, delayed in carrying out carers assessments for Mr and Mrs X, failed to issue a final EHC plan, delayed in resolving an issue with Mr and Mrs X’s liability insurance, wrongly stopped Mr and Mrs X’s direct payments and failed deal properly with their complaint. As a result the Council did not provide an adequate care package for Miss Y which caused significant distress to Mr and Mrs X and Miss Y. The failure to provide a final EHC plan has caused uncertainty to Mr and Mrs X and Miss Y. Mr and Mrs X were also caused distress and put to avoidable time and trouble by the other faults. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice to Mr and Mrs X and Miss Y.
Summary: Mrs B complains about the way the Council commissioned care provider decided her father, Mr C, could no longer stay at the care home. Mrs B says the care provider did not discuss the issues with her before the Council moved Mr C to another care home without notifying her. Mrs B says this caused distress for her and Mr C. The Council is at fault for not correctly managing Mr C’s placement termination in liaison with him and his family. The Council has agreed to remind staff of the correct procedure, to work with the care provider to keep residents and their family informed about changes to care or placement. The Council will also apologise and make a payment to remedy the uncertainty and distress caused to Mrs B.
Summary: There is evidence of delay and poor communication by the Council during an assessment of Mrs Y’s needs. The Council also failed to ensure Mrs Y’s personal budget was sufficient to cover her care and support needs. This caused an injustice to Mrs Y, and to Ms X, her daughter, who pursued the matter on Mrs Y’s behalf.
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s response to his report of safeguarding concerns about his father. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the quality of care a company provided to her father. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve significantly more for Mrs B by investigating her complaint.
Summary: Miss A complains the Council is wrong to seek recovery of a top up fee for her mother’s care home when she could no longer afford to pay it. The Ombudsman finds there is fault by the Council, because it did not consider the sustainability of its arrangement with Miss A. The Council has agreed a remedy.
Summary: The Council wrongly reduced Mr Y’s personal budget for respite care. It set an arbitrary upper limit on the amount it was willing to pay. The amount was insufficient to meet Mr Y’s assessed need for respite care at home. Consequently, his parents topped up payments to carers. The Council failed to provide respite care for sixteen months, and then failed to provide an adequate remedy following a complaint about this. Mr Y’s parents have been put to significant time and trouble pursuing the matter.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about the actions of the Council dealing with his concerns about his son’s, Mr B’s care provider. This is because the Council’s actions have not caused a significant enough injustice to Mr A to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. Mr A can ask the court to consider whether his evidence meets the threshold for a claim of defamation, and it would be reasonable for him to use this remedy.
Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s adult social care services. The Ombudsman has not found fault with Mr B’s social worker’s statements during a meeting on 21 June 2018 and the Council’s response to his complaint. The Council has lost Mr B’s online referral form and the Council has already apologised for this which is an appropriate remedy.
Summary: Mr C complains that the Council failed to provide him with adequate support with his housing and social care needs. I have concluded my investigation on the basis that there was no fault in the way the Council dealt with the issues Mr C has raised.
Summary: Ms C complains about the lack of support and information she received from the Council when she had to deal with the estate of her recently deceased son. The Ombudsman found that some information Ms C received was confusing. There was also a delay by the Council in finalising her son’s account and dealing with her complaint. The Council has already apologised to Ms C and offered her a financial remedy of £200. It has also decided to develop an information leaflet for bereaved families. I am satisfied with the actions the Council has taken.
Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his father, Mr Y, who is deceased. Mr X complained about an invoice for care fees when Mr Y lived in a care home for a period of assessment between January and March 2018. Mr X said the Council left Mr Y in an unsuitable room and told him it would not charge for care while it assessed Mr Y’s needs and mental capacity. The Council was not at fault. There was no evidence to show Mr X was told the care home place was free, and no evidence which showed Mr Y’s room was unsuitable. However, the Council was at fault for failing to communicate the result of Mr Y’s financial assessment and also failing to give clear information about the charges to Mr X. The Council agreed to reduce the outstanding invoice by £200 to acknowledge the uncertainty that caused Mr X.
Summary: Miss X complains about the way the Council dealt with her complaint about her late mother’s care. She says her mother deserved to be better cared for. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the Council’s actions.
Summary: The complaint is about the way the care provider ended its care provision at short notice, not allowing the complainants time to find a new provider. The Ombudsman’s view is a contract allowed the care provider to end the contract giving the notice it did. Although the care provider has not got a signed copy of the contract, this is unlikely to have caused a significant enough injustice to warrant the public expense of further investigation.
Summary: There is no evidence the Council was at fault in its assessment of Mr X’s social care needs, except in its failure to consider his need for someone to accompany him to medical appointments. The Council now agrees to reconsider its assessment on that point in the light of the Care Act.
Summary: Ms X complains the Council has failed to address the shortfall in her personal budget, first raised in August 2018, leaving her without enough money to pay her Personal Assistants properly. The Council has failed to do this as the assessment it is carrying out will only address the way to meet Ms X’s needs in the future. The Council needs to apologise, pay financial redress and increase Ms X’s personal budget so it is enough to meet the legitimate commitments arising from her existing personal budget.
Summary: The Council did not have sufficient detail at the time of Mr A’s application to award a Blue Badge under the new criteria. It was not at fault. Mr A can now reapply as the new criteria have come into force.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about charges for social care from 2009 onwards. This is because the complaint has been made late and there are no good reasons for us to exercise discretion and investigate now.
Summary: Mrs B, acting on behalf of the family of the late Mrs X, complains the Council failed to provide financial information following Mrs X’s death so that the family was unaware that a benefit overpayment had to be repaid from the estate. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint as it falls outside our jurisdiction because the family was aware of the overpayment in 2017 and it is too late for an investigation now.
Summary: The complainant, Mrs B, says communication between the London Borough of Sutton and Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust was poor when they dealt with her late husband’s discharge from hospital. She also complained about the way Sutton Clinical Commissioning Group considered her husband’s eligibility for healthcare funding. The Ombudsmen found communication between the Council and the Trust was satisfactory, but they failed to share copies of assessments with Mrs B. The Clinical Commissioning Group properly considered whether Mrs B’s husband was eligible for healthcare funding but did not initially write to Mrs B with the outcome of its consideration. The authorities have agreed to the Ombudsmen’s recommendations and will apologise to Mrs B, pay a financial remedy to acknowledge the injustice caused and remind their staff of the importance of sharing copies of assessments and outcome of decisions.
Summary: The complainant, Ms B, said the care and treatment provided to her late father when he was approaching the end of his life by Staffordshire County Council, Newford Nursing Home and University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust fell below expected standards. She also said the Home and the Trust did not communicate properly about the plan for her father’s care when he was discharged from hospital. As a result, she said she experienced distress and confusion. The Ombudsmen did not find fault in the care and treatment provided to the complainant’s father or in the way the authorities communicated with each other. However, the Home was not open and transparent with Ms B when it communicated the timing of her father’s death in the Home. The Council and the Home have agreed to the Ombudsmen’s recommendations and will apologise, make an acknowledgement payment and improve the Home’s procedures for planning end of life care with residents and their families.
Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to deal properly with her and her parents when safeguarding concerns were raised and she asked for help in November 2018. The Council delayed in contacting Mrs Y about the safeguarding concerns and delayed in reassessing her needs. This resulted in her paying too much for her care and caused unnecessary distress to her and her daughter. The Council needs to apologies, pay financial redress and take action to prevent similar problems from happening.
Summary: Ms X complains her father, Mr Y, was the victim of abuse and neglect by four carers at Ringway Mews Care Home and the Council left her dealing with this on her own with little or no support. There is no dispute over the fact Mr Y was the victim of abuse and that this should have been reported to the Council as a safeguarding concern. If this had happened Miss X could have been better supported. The Council needs to apologise for the failings and the distress they caused.
Summary: Mr B says the Council wrongly removed an activity from his daughter’s (Ms C’s) adult social care support plan. The Council decided this following a properly carried out review, so there is no fault. However, the Council failed to complete a follow up of the new support plan. There are valid reasons why the suggestions the Council made are not working for Ms C, which the Council would have discovered at a follow up review. The Council’s fault means it has not met Ms C’s social needs, and she has funded it herself. The Council will apologise, refund what the family have paid to meet eligible care needs, ensure a suitable option is available to meet Ms C’s social needs, and make remind staff of its review procedures.
Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about their daughter’s assessed contribution to her care charges and the funding provided to meet her needs. In addition, their daughter has not had respite provision set out in her support plan and the Council failed to provide additional support after she broke her leg. The Council was not at fault
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the care provider’s response to his concerns. This is because Mr X is not a service user and so the complaint is outside our jurisdiction.
Summary: The Council continued to provide services to Mrs X even though a substantial debt accrued, as she had eligible assessed needs and some payments were made towards the total debt. Mrs X has not suffered any injustice as a result of the Council’s actions.
Summary: The Ombudsman has not found evidence of fault in the way the nursing home dealt with funded nursing care, its offer of rooms and the contract. The Home has already upheld a complaint about the care and records on 21 April 2018 and has responded appropriately so the Ombudsman does not recommend a further remedy.
Summary: Mrs X complains that a care home failed to give her mother antibiotics as prescribed by her GP and failed to ensure she could drink. The Council is at fault as its safeguarding investigation was inadequate as it did not address itself to the fact the care home had not evidenced it had administered Mrs Y’s antibiotics between 8 and 10 January and did not investigate Mrs Y’s dehydration. The Council also did not identify Mrs X’s was making a complaint in 2017. These faults caused uncertainty and put Mrs X to avoidable time and trouble which the Council has agreed to apologise for.
Summary: The Council’s position on the complainant’s eligibility for social care is unclear, and its care plan is confusing. However, there is no evidence this has caused an injustice. The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation of this complaint, because the complainant is currently unable to engage with the investigation process.
Summary: Miss D complains the Council refused her application for a blue badge. My provisional view is that there was no fault by the Council. It has offered to assess Miss D’s mobility and reconsider its decision.
Summary: The Ombudsmen do not consider there was fault in the way Lancashire County Council and Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust decided Mrs B’s daughter had capacity to be discharged from the community mental health team. The community mental health team also considered Mrs B’s concerns.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s late complaint about care provided to her mother Mrs B, prior to her death in 2017. This is because Mrs A could have come to the Ombudsman sooner if she was unhappy with Mrs B’s care or the Council’s responses to her concerns. There is no good reason to disapply the law in this case.
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to reconsider its financial assessment of Mrs D’s contribution to her care fees. This is because the complaint is late.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint that her son’s, Mr B‘s, assessed care charges will cause him hardship. This is because there is no evidence of fault with the Council’s assessment warranting an investigation by the Ombudsman.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to renew the complainant’s Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Summary: Mrs Y, who is complaining on behalf of her aunt and cousin, says the Council is at fault in how it has calculated the contributions her aunt should make towards her residential care. The Ombudsman found some evidence of fault and recommended the Council act on his recommendations. It agreed and for this reason he has ended his consideration of this 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.
