Summary: The Ombudsman finds no evidence of fault causing injustice by the Council in its consideration of Mr X’s request for the Council to build an extension to his home to meet the needs of his disabled son.

Summary: The complainant, Miss B said it was wrong when the Council and the CCG asked her to pay a third-party top-up fee towards accommodation provided to her father under the terms of the Mental Health Act 1983. She said she did not have help from the Council and the Trust to find a suitable placement and was bullied into signing a third-party top-up agreement. On the evidence available, the Ombudsmen do not find fault by the CCG. The Council and the Trust provided Miss B with good information when explaining why more expensive accommodation would require a third-party top-up payment. There were also faults in the way the Council and the Trust asked Miss B to sign a third-party top-up agreement and this is likely to have caused her avoidable distress. The Council and the Trust did not share a copy of an updated nursing needs assessment with two homes and as a result Miss B is left with doubt about the choice of accommodation process. The Council and the Trust have agreed to the Ombudsmen recommendations and will apologise, make an acknowledgement payment to Miss B. They will also remind officers of the importance of good practice when dealing with choice of accommodation.

Summary: Mr G complains about disabled facilities grant works undertaken on his home in 2014/5. We find fault by the Council in not knowing of Mr G’s complaint until 2018, when it should have known sooner. This caused injustice to Mr G in time and trouble spent using the wrong complaint procedure. The Council has agreed action we consider will provide for a fair remedy to the complaint, explained at the end of this statement.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council’s new policy on making contributions to the costs of home care is unfair and has caused her daughter financial hardship. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council tried to recover costs for the late Mrs Y’s care charges. The Ombudsman finds fault as the Council sent demands with incorrect costs. This left Mrs Y’s husband believing he had to pay more for Mrs Y’s care costs. The Council has agreed to write off the remaining care costs, and review its procedures for invoicing.

Summary: The Council acted in line with sections 42 and 9 of the Care Act 2014 when responding to Ms A’s concerns of abuse of her late mother by an informal carer and so there was no fault.

Summary: Mr X complains about the financial assessment carried out by the Council which has resulted in him owing outstanding charges for care services provided to him. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Ms B complains the Council put a legal charge on her mother’s property which the family knew nothing about. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it is a late complaint which falls outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a refund of top-up fees. This is because there is not enough evidence the actions of the care provider caused Mr X injustice.

Summary: Mr C complained that the Council failed to carry out an assessment of his care needs. However, the Council provided evidence showing that it did assess Mr C’s needs, and there is no evidence of fault it carried out its assessment.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council damaging tiles in her mother’s bathroom when it installed a shower seat. We propose not to investigate this complaint. Claims for damage to property are for the courts to consider, and it is reasonable for Miss X to apply to the court on her mother’s behalf.

Summary: Mr X says his mother’s estate should not have to pay for his late mother’s care. The Council says Mr X and/or his mother should not have spent money that should have been used for her care. It seeks to recover that money. We do not find the Council at fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman has not investigated most of Mrs B’s complaints as they are out of time, relate to court proceedings, relate to another council or are out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction for another reason. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s review of its decision that Mrs B has a single point of contact in her communications with the Council and in its offer of a carer’s assessment.

Summary: Ms X complained about the quality of domiciliary care provided to her mother Ms Y by Helping Hands. There were faults as there was a lack of continuity of carers, last minute rota changes and a carer carried out shorter visits than scheduled. This caused Ms Y some distress. The care provider also delayed responding to Ms X’s complaint causing Ms X frustration. The care provider has agreed to pay Ms Y £250 and Ms X £100 to acknowledge the injustice caused by its faults. It has also agreed to remind staff of its complaints’ procedures and the need to accurately record the time of visits.

Summary: Mr B complains the Council has not decided whether to make adaptions to Mr C’s home. He says the Council has had three years to decide and not doing so has caused uncertainty and distress to Mr C’s family. The Ombudsman finds fault and recommends the Council make a decision within a month.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about the way the Council has dealt with the charges for his father’s care. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not explain the costs involved when his mother went into short term residential care. He also complains the Council did not take into account her housing-related costs when deciding how much she should pay towards her care. The Council was at fault. It should waive some of the costs to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council refused her application for a Blue Badge and Taxicard without providing her with reasons. There was no fault in the way the Council considered Mrs X application. However, the Council was at fault for failing to show Mrs X how it made its decision.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms C’s complaint that the Care Provider failed to provide an adequate service. This is because it is unlikely an investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mrs Y says the Council is failing to ensure her son’s care provision. We cannot investigate as this complaint falls outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: Mr C complained the Council failed to consider some of his daughter’s expenses as disability related expenses, within her financial assessment. He also complains the Council has not allocated enough funds in his daughter’s personal budget to enable his daughter to pursue a work opportunity she has identified. The Ombudsman did not find fault with regards to the Council’s actions.

Summary: Mrs B’s care was not in line with applicable care standards: there were no up to date care plans reflecting her needs and preferences and the records of her care were inadequate. The Care Provider has already apologised, reviewed procedures and offered a full refund to Mr B. This is an appropriate remedy.

Summary: Ms D complains the Council decided to reduce her homecare package, even though her needs have not reduced. As such, Ms D says she no longer has the amount of support she needs. The Ombudsman did not find fault with the way the Council reached its decision.

Summary: The representative of the late Mr X complains the Council charged Mr X for care when he was discharged from hospital. The Ombudsman finds the Council was not at fault in how it told Mr X about his charges for care.

Summary: Ms B complains the Council did not deal with her complaint about incorrect charges for her son, Mr C’s, care in accordance with its procedure. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council. The Council agrees to pay Ms B £50 in recognition of the time and trouble pursuing the complaint and Mr C £100 for the distress he experienced.

Summary: The Council was not at fault in the way it reached a decision about Ms X’s eligibility for support.

Summary: The Council has failed to provide evidence that it properly assessed Ms B’s application to renew her blue badge. To remedy the injustice caused, it agreed to re-assess Ms B’s application, apologise and make her a payment.

Summary: Mrs B complains the Council charged for her father’s care when it should have been free. Mrs B says the Council did not tell her father’s family about the charges and met with him without any family present. The Ombudsman does not find fault in the Council charging for the care. However, we find fault in how the Council conducted the initial assessment. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and pay her for the distress caused.

Summary: Ms X complains failings by the Care Home led to her father’s premature death and caused financial loss. The Ombudsman will not investigate the care provided by the Care Home as it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. The Ombudsman finds fault in how the Care Home charges residents. The Ombudsman recommends the Care Home provides a refund to Mr Y’s estate, remedies any injustice to other residents and takes action to prevent recurrence.

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.