Summary: The Council failed to ensure all Mr Y’s care needs were met when his college placement ended in 2017. The allocated personal budget was insufficient to meet Mr Y’s care and support needs. It also failed to undertake a reassessment when a community group requested increased support for Mr Y which directly contributed to the breakdown of the placement. The Council’s failures caused an injustice to the whole family, but particularly to Mr Y’s father, who suffered the strain of an increased caring role.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council will not accept driving lessons as disability related expenditure. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council assessed the late Mr and Mrs Y’s finances. Mr X said this caused Mr and Mrs Y to run out of funds and Mr Y to be devastated and desperately worried. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the assessment but some fault in delays completing it. The Council has already apologised, and this has remedied any injustice.

Summary: Ms X complains that the Council did not inform her about changes to Ms Y’s contribution to her care and the way it dealt with her complaints about this. She says she ended up with significant arrears which she cannot afford to pay. The Ombudsman finds fault in the Council’s handling of her complaint but not in the information it provided about the increase. The Council has already apologised and taken action to prevent similar problems in future, so he makes no recommendations.

Summary: There is no fault by the Council in the way it considered Mr X’s contributions towards the cost of his care. As Mr X is now in receipt of the mobility component of PIP I do not see there are grounds for the Council to provide an additional DRE allowance for petrol

Summary: Miss N complained the Council failed to fully investigate safeguarding concerns about her grandfather, Mr G. She said Mr G was at risk of physical, emotional and financial abuse, from his son, Mr S. The Council was not at fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about charges for her late mother’s care. This is because the complaint is late, and it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a financial assessment carried out by the Council. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons for the Ombudsman to exercise its discretion to investigate.

Summary: Ms C complains about the homecare her (late) husband received while she was away for a week. The Ombudsman found fault with regards to the care Mr C received. The care provider has agreed to provide an apology to Ms C and reduce the outstanding invoice.

Summary: There is evidence of fault by the care provider. There are inconsistencies in the records of a fall Mr Y had in a care home. There was a delay in providing Mr Y’s family with care records pertaining to the fall. The Care Provider failed to investigate the complaint and failed to respond to Mr Y’s family. There is no evidence to suggest Mr Y received poor care, or that his fall could have been prevented

Summary: Mr X complained the Council decided he does not have eligible needs under the Care Act 2014. There was no fault in the way the Council assessed Mr X’s needs and the Ombudsman cannot question the merits of its decision.

Summary: Mr C complained that his wife had to pay for a period of residential respite care, following a stay in hospital. The Ombudsman discontinued the investigation because Mr C’s wife had capacity to make decisions and had decided to extend the stay at the home, beyond the two weeks of free care, and pay for this from her own funds. There is no indication in the information obtained, that she was unhappy with this or wanted to make a complaint about this.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about missing Christmas cards and a dressing gown. There is insufficient evidence of injustice warranting an investigation.

Summary: Mrs B, complains for her elderly mother Mrs C about how the Council dealt with financial matters associated with the estate of a relative. The Ombudsman finds there was fault by the Council in this matter, leading to injustice for Mrs C for which a remedy has been agreed.

Summary: There is no evidence the outcome of the safeguarding investigation into Mrs X’s fall was materially different without the evidence of one particular carer, as Mr A suggests. The Council has already apologised for some delay and taken action to ensure the care provider improves its practices.

Summary: The Council passed on Mr X’s personal information to another organisation without his consent when it was dealing with his application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. This was fault and it caused Mr X distress. Mr X did not wish to have any further contact with that organisation following a complaint he had made about the conduct of a staff member. The Council has agreed to provide a remedy for this part of Mr X’s complaint. The other parts of Mr X’s complaint have not been upheld.

Summary: When the Council was notified about concerns for Mr B’s welfare, it failed to properly consider whether to carry out an assessment of Mr B’s care and support needs and did not always properly consider whether to make safeguarding enquiries. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr B, and to take action to prevent similar failings in future.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council handled the care costs for his late father. He said the Council’s actions caused stress and worry for the family. The Council was at fault for not carrying out a full needs assessment and mental capacity assessment in November 2017, for not making clear what it had agreed about fees in its best interests decision in December 2017, for not considering the impact of Mr F moving to a new care home in 2018, for not being sufficiently proactive in resolving the dispute about top-up fees and for a delay in completing its financial assessment. It should pay the care home £1,000 to remedy the uncertainty caused.

Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s failure to provide him with financial information relating to the cost of his wife’s care. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

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 Mr X’s complaint about damage to his property he says was caused by the care provider’s employee. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to use the legal remedy available to him.

Summary: There is no evidence the Council failed to consider Mrs A’s views when assessing Mr P’s needs.

Summary: The Ombudsman has found fault with the agency’s care records and its provision of care and medication. The Ombudsman recommends that the Council, which commissioned the care, apologises to Ms B and pays her £300. The Council should also refer the agency to the CQC guidance on record keeping.

Summary: the complainant applied for a Blue Badge parking permit in February 2019. The Council found him ineligible under the current guidance. The application is eligible under new government guidance which came into force in August 2019. The Council says it told the complainant to apply later in the year once the new guidance came into force. The Government issued the new guidance in June 2019. In response to the Ombudsman’s invitation in July 2019 to consider a remedy the Council granted the Blue Badge. The Ombudsman finds the Council acted without fault in issuing the Blue Badge once the Government issued the guidance.

Summary: Mrs B complained about the Council’s actions in relation to the financial assessment of her brother Mr D. We found the Council was at fault prior to December 2018 in failing to notify Mrs B of the contribution. But it has put right the injustice arising from this error. We cannot find fault with its actions from December 2018.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s delay in sending invoices for her mother’s care. She says this caused her stress and inconvenience. We should not investigate this complaint because the Council has already provided an appropriate remedy. An investigation is unlikely to achieve more for Ms X.

Summary: A man complained about the mental health services he received. The Ombudsmen will not investigate the complaint because they cannot achieve the outcomes he seeks.

Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to provide satisfactory support when his carer left and is unreasonably seeking repayment of direct payments. There is no fault in the Council’s decision to recover direct payments. The Council failed to ensure the care provision put in place for Mr B matched his assessed needs for part of the period. That left Mr B feeling vulnerable and unable to stay at home and led to his mother having to step in to provide further care. An apology, financial award to Mr B and his mother and an agreement to liaise with the current care agency to sort out a 24-hour care package is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: The investigation into this complaint will be discontinued because we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X is seeking. We cannot seek an apology for comments made by a care home manager to Mrs X during a conversation. Neither can we pursue Mrs X’s wish for assurances she can continue to visit people in the care home not related to her.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the care provided to her late husband on the Council’s behalf. This is because we cannot say the care wrongly caused his death and we cannot now remedy any injustice he may have suffered during the final weeks/months of his life.

Summary: the Council was responsible for failing to provide a proper standard of care and treatment to Mr and Mrs X. The care provider it commissioned failed to order medication, left the medication within reach of vulnerable elderly adults, and on one occasion omitted essential medication, causing actual harm to Mr X.

Summary: There was fault in the Home’s records relating to an incident involving Mr C. There was fault in the way the Home evicted Mr C, the eviction itself, the lack of notice and the contract upon which the eviction was based. The Home has agreed to apologise to Mr C and his family, pay back three weeks’ fees and £300, review its contract and ensure that managers are training in managing and recording incidents.

Summary: The Care Provider has acknowledged that it did not always communicate key information, so the complainant did not know his father was receiving end of life care. It has apologised and refunded the care fees. The Care Provider also did not do enough to get the complainant’s father medical treatment when he was ill, and had refused food and water. Its actions have caused the family distress and it should apologise, remind its staff of its processes and pay the family in recognition of this.

Summary: The Ombudsman has not found fault in the way the Council communicated with Mrs C about the charges for her mother’s care. It has not upheld the complaint about incidents involving two of the care agencies.

Summary: The Ombudsman has discontinued its investigation into a complaint about an alleged incident at a care home that happened more than five years and the Council’s refusal to disclose documents about its investigation into the incident. The complaint is out of time and other agencies are better placed to investigate the complaint.

Summary: Mrs B complains about the Council’s handling of her payment contributions towards her care costs and about its interaction with her two daughters who act on her behalf. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mrs B to warrant an investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision on his mother’s financial assessment in relation to residential care home charges. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a care agency failing to make calls in line with the care plan. This is because the complainant has already received a financial remedy and the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve anything more.

Summary: The Ombudsmen find fault by Care UK with regards to the care it provided to an elderly man during his time in a care home in 2017 and 2018. The Ombudsmen have made recommendations to address this fault and the impact it had on the man’s family.

Summary: The Ombudsmen find fault by Care UK with regards to the care it provided to an elderly man during his time in a care home in 2017 and 2018. The Ombudsmen have made recommendations to address this fault and the impact it had on the man’s family.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council delayed assessing Mr X’s mother’s (Mrs Y’s) care needs and mismanaged her finances when it was her deputy. The Council was at fault when it did not order equipment in March 2018. This did not cause a significant injustice. There was no fault in its response to Mr and Mrs X’s request for a care needs assessment or in its management of Mrs Y’s finances. I cannot come to findings on solicitors’ fees as these were linked to court proceedings.

Summary: Mr X and Ms Y complain the Council has delayed unnecessarily in providing an extension to their property to meet the latter’s needs, and has failed to keep them updated on the progress of the matter or respond to their emails about it. They also complain about the way the Council handled their complaint about these issues. The Ombudsman has found the Council was at fault for not giving adequate notice when cancelling scheduled appointments, for not recording these appointments, and for the way it handled Mr X and Ms Y’s complaint. However, we have not found fault in relation to any other part of their complaint. The failure to give proper notice caused them some injustice therefore the Council has agreed to offer an apology and ensure it gives at least 24 hours’ notice if it needs to cancel any future appointments. It has also agreed to make some service improvements to prevent the faults identified from reoccurring.