Summary: Mr X complains the Council reduced his adult son, Mr Y’s, personal budget without full assessment and consideration of his needs. Mr X believes decisions taken to reduce Mr Y’s personal budget were financially motivated. Consequently, Mr Y had to top-up his budget to enable him to continue receiving support from a Care Provider.
Summary: X complains about maladministration, prejudice and bias, and a failure to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. Much of X’s complaint is outside our jurisdiction to investigate as he started legal proceedings against the Council in December 2018 and, in any case, we cannot accept late complaints about events which happened years ago. Some of his complaints fall within the jurisdiction of other bodies. Regarding the more recent events which are within our jurisdiction to investigate, there is no evidence of injustice to X which requires a remedy. However, the Council was at fault for referring to an out of date policy when reviewing the restrictions placed on his contact with it.
Summary: Ms S complained on behalf of her brother that the Council provided him with insufficient care and wrongly assessed his financial contribution. The Council was not at fault.
Summary: The Council investigated Mr X’s complaint properly and apologised for failings on the part of the commissioned emergency service. It has agreed to a payment in recognition of the distress that caused. It is not the Council’s responsibility to pay the additional costs now Mrs A no longer receives the emergency service from the care provider.
Summary: Mr X complained about the length of time his father, Mr Y, spent in a care home because the Council delayed putting arrangements in place to allow his father to return home. The Council delayed assessing Mr Y’s ability to manage at home and delayed sourcing a care provider. It also delayed responding to Mr X’s complaint. This meant Mr Y was in a care home longer than he should have been. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr Y, reduce the bill by £2800 and pay him £500 to acknowledge the distress caused to him by the prolonged stay. It has also agreed to pay Mr X £150 to acknowledge the time and trouble and distress this caused him.
Summary: We have not upheld Mr Y’s complaint that the Care Provider charged his mother for nursing care she did not need or receive. But the Care Provider’s contract was poorly worded and there was a delay in providing Mr Y with written information about fees. It also took too long to send Mr Y information about the complaints procedure. These faults put Mr Y to some time and trouble. The Care Provider has drawn up an action plan based on its learning from this complaint and accepted our recommendations for a remedy.
Summary: Mr B complains the Council did not tell him about care charges when his mother entered a care home and wrongly charged him for her stay. The Ombudsman found fault with the Council causing injustice. The Council failed to provide important information and took too long to carry out a financial assessment. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice caused.
Summary: Mr B has complained about the handling of his daughter C’s adult care review and the lack of one-to-one provision for her for late night access to the community. The Ombudsman considers that the provision of an additional five hours one-to-one support to C and the apology given to Mr B are suitable remedies for the injustice caused to them.
Summary: Ms X complained about how long the Council took to make an application to the Court of Protection to sell her share of her former home. This has caused her unnecessary expense. The Ombudsman has found there has been some avoidable delay that has caused Ms X an injustice. To remedy this, the Council has agreed with the Ombudsman’s recommendation to apologise and cover Ms X’s rent for some of this time.
Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council assessed his mother, Mrs Y’s, financial contribution towards the cost of care. The Council was at fault in the way it made and communicated its decisions.
Summary: Ms C complains the adaptations proposed by the Council are not suitable and will not meet her son’s needs. The Ombudsman did not uphold Ms C’s complaint, because he found there was no fault with the process through which the Council reached its decision.
Summary: Ms C complains her mother experienced two incidents at the care home she lives, where she was injured during hoisting / transfers. The Ombudsman found that both incidents occurred due to fault by the care provider. However, they were not related to hoisting. The care provider has already taken appropriate action to remedy any injustice.
Summary: Mr and Mrs C complaint the Council failed to tell them there would be a charge for the homecare Mrs M would receive. The Ombudsman found that, while there was some fault in the actions of the Council, it did tell Mr C there would be a charge. The Council has already taken appropriate action to address any faults and remedy any injustice.
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her son’s care provider gave him the level of care needed. She said her complaint about poor care resulted in his eviction from a placement with the Hollybank Trust. The Clinical Commissioning Group and the Hollybank Trust have not yet had the opportunity to respond to Mrs X’s complaint, therefore, the Ombudsmen have discontinued their investigation.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council arranged a payment from the complainant’s late brother’s estate. This is because it is unlikely he will find fault by the Council and the complainant has not been caused injustice.
Summary: Miss X complained the Council bought a bus pass out of her own money when she was eligible for a free travel pass. The Ombudsman finds the Council acted without fault.
Summary: Mrs D complains about the care of her late mother-in-law by a care home and Trust. The Ombudsmen have found fault causing injustice. The Trust and Council have agreed to apologise and make payments to Mrs D.
Summary: Mr and Mrs C complain the Council delayed in completing a reassessment of their daughter’s care needs and failed to assess properly her needs which resulted in a reduction in her care package. Mr and Mrs C say their daughter’s one-to-one hours have been reduced which severely limits her opportunity to go out for evenings or at the weekend and her day centre activity has been changed and her well-being has deteriorated. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council in delays in support planning, delay in a subsequent review and record keeping failings. The Ombudsman is satisfied the action already taken by the Council of a payment and review and agreed action of an apology is enough to provide a suitable remedy.
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to properly consider the law and guidance when deciding Mrs W deliberately deprived herself of capital to avoid care charges. The Council’s decision is not fully in line with the guidance, which means it is flawed and this causes injustice as it is in doubt. The Council needs to reconsider its decision.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint that the Council should have completed a Continuing Health Care (CHC) checklist for his mother, Mrs B, before assessing her finances. This is because the Council’s actions have not caused either Mr A or Mrs B a significant enough injustice to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaints about the Council’s actions regarding her late mother, Mrs B. This is because the Council has remedied any significant injustice caused by its initial assessments and there is no unremedied injustice warranting an investigation by the Ombudsman.
Summary: The complainant says a Care Provider wrongly evicted his elderly father from its care home without giving due notice. The Care Provider says the complainant’s father self- discharged, had capacity to do so and that it acted in line with expert advice. The Ombudsman finds the Care Provider caused an injustice to the resident when it failed to provide him with 28 days’ notice to leave the home.
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.
