Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain on Ms X’s behalf. They complain that the Council took 15 months too long to complete a financial assessment it agreed to carry out to remedy an earlier complaint we upheld. This has delayed the resolution of Mr and Mrs X’s concerns about the Council’s calculation of disability related expenditure.
Summary: Mrs C considers that the Council has wrongly charged for her late father-in-law’s residential care, despite having agreed that he was entitled to six weeks’ free care. The Ombudsman considers that the Council is entitled to seek the outstanding balance of £1,812.62 for her late father-in-law’s care.
Summary: Mr & Mrs C complain about matters relating to a safeguarding investigation that the Council carried out after Mrs C’s mother received an oxygen overdose at a care home. There was fault in how the Council responded the Mr & Mrs C’s complaint, and it has agreed to a suitable remedy.
Summary: The Ombudsmen find no fault in the care a Hospital Trust, Council-funded Care Home and GP Surgery provided to an older patient following hip surgery. The patient’s hip became dislocated but, in view of the wider situation, there is no indication this was missed because of poor care.
Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s decision to change her care package and reduce the length of carer visit times. I have discontinued my investigation. The Council has already reviewed Miss X’s care and has reinstated her care package to the previous level which meets her needs. Further investigation would unlikely lead to a different outcome.
Summary: Mrs X complains that the care provider failed to properly investigate her complaint including an incident where her sister was attacked by another service user. The Ombudsman has discontinued his consideration of the complaint, as the Council has not had the opportunity to investigate and respond to the complaint.
Summary: Mr C complained about the way in which the Council dealt with his application for a new blue badge. The Ombudsman did not uphold Mr C’s complaint.
Summary: The complainant is concerned about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. The Ombudsman is discontinuing his investigation because the Council has arranged for the complainant to pursue its appeal process. Once this is completed, and if the complainant remains dissatisfied, she can resubmit the complaint to the Ombudsman.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about comments and advice provided by a Council officer. This is because it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add to the response already provided by the Council’s investigation.
Summary: Mr X complains that the Council placed his adult son, Mr M, in supported living accommodation without a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard, which was far away from the family home, and there was a lack of care. He says this caused Mr M’s behaviour to escalate, caused him to gain weight, and led to him being detained under the Mental Health Act. Mr X says this caused him stress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman does not uphold Mr X’s complaint. This is because we have found no evidence of fault.
Summary: there were significant faults in the way the Council reviewed Mrs X’s care and support needs and reduced her care package and Direct Payments. This caused her some hardship and severe distress. The Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy.
Summary: Ms C complained about the care and support her mother received at her care home. The Ombudsman decided to discontinue his investigation, because the care provider offered an appropriate remedy, which the complainant accepted, before the investigation was completed.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s late complaint about the Council charging his late mother’s, Mrs B’s, estate for her care. This is because Mr A could have come to the Ombudsman sooner if her was concerned about the charges so there no good reason for the Ombudsman to disapply the law in this case.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A’s complaint about the Council’s delay in providing her with her annual carer’s grant. This is because the Council has apologised for the delay, explained the reasons for the delay and offered a time and trouble payment of £100. The Ombudsman is satisfied this remedies the injustice caused to Ms A by the fault.
Summary: Ms X complained the Council has not paid her care company for overnight support it has provided to a person with eligible care needs. We cannot investigate this late complaint. It relates to a commissioning or contractual issue, and would best be dealt with by the courts if a resolution cannot be reached.
Summary: We have no legal power to investigate Miss X’s complaint about privately funded rehabilitation for substance misuse. Such services do not fall within the definition of adult social care services.
Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not explain his mother’s short stay in a residential home would be chargeable until two months after the period in question. We will not investigate this late complaint. There is not a good reason Mr X did not complain sooner, and due to the time lapsed we would not be able to fully investigate and come to sound conclusions. In any event, it is unlikely we would find fault.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr Y and Mrs Z’s complaint about the Council’s involvement in planning their mother’s discharge from hospital. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would be able to find enough independent evidence to make a meaningful finding.
Summary: Mrs X complains about Council arranged support for her daughter between April and August 2017. She also complains about a mental capacity assessment carried out in July 2016. The care provider failed to give adequate information about its out of hours service and failed to properly consider whether it was safe for Miss D to travel to the social club on her own in
August 2017. Further, the Council failed to investigate and respond to Mr and Mrs X’s concerns. The Council will apologise and pay
Mrs X £350 for the injustice caused.
Summary: Mrs X has complained about the care and support provided to Miss Y. She is also unhappy with the Care Provider’s decision to terminate its service agreement with Miss Y. There is evidence of fault by the Care Provider.
Summary: Mrs B complains the Council reduced her direct payments without good reason. Mrs B says she relies on direct payments for help during times of acute illness. The Ombudsman finds fault in how the Council considered information Mrs B provided about her condition. We recommend the Council conduct a further review.
Summary: Ms B says the Council failed to help her to remove a lift from her property that was provided by a Disabled Facilities Grant to her mother. The Council had no statutory duty to assist, and there is no evidence Ms B told the Council of her disability or the impact the lift was having on her following her mother’s death. The Council properly considered whether to help, gave correct advice to Ms B, and signposted her to the company that installed the lift.
Summary: Mrs X complained for her mother, Mrs Y, about care and recording keeping at St Mary’s Nursing Home. She also complained about a safeguarding referral. There was no fault.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint that carers providing care to his aunt, Mrs B, were negligent and caused her harm. This is because the Ombudsman could not say how Mrs B sustained the injuries or make a finding of neglect. The court can consider claims for compensation and it would be reasonable for Mr A to ask the court to consider whether the evidence he has meets the eligibility criteria for a claim of neglect and compensation.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about the Council’s delay in completing an assessment on his mother Mrs B. This is because the Council has apologised and agreed to reimburse Mrs B the difference in costs between her new care home and the assessment centre care charge. The Ombudsman is satisfied there is no unremedied injustice for him to investigate.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about his late mother’s, Mrs B’s, care provider’s refusal to respond to his complaints. This is because Mr A has not suffered any significant injustice from the care provider’s actions while there was a safeguarding investigation in progress to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about the Council’s actions regarding his daughter, Ms B’s, social care needs. This is because the Council has apologised for the lack of communication and explained the actions it will take to ensure a smooth transition for Ms B. It is unlikely any further investigation by the Ombudsman could add to this or make a different finding.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council has lied to him about whether the CCTV cameras in an overnight facility are fixed in position. This is because we do not look behind the actions of the Council to establish the motives for what it has done and we cannot say Mr B he has suffered sufficient injustice as a result of the Council’s actions to justify us investigating his complaint.
Summary: The Ombudsmen have upheld Miss X’s complaint about Mr Y’s placement with a supported accommodation provider, which was arranged and funded by the Council and the Clinical Commissioning Group.
Summary: Ms C complained about the way in which the Council assessed that she has to pay a financial contribution towards the cost of her homecare support. The Ombudsman found there was no fault in the Council’s decision to backdate her contribution to the date her benefits increased. However, there was fault in the way the Council dealt with some of the items she asked to be treated as Disability Related Expenses (DRE). The Council has agreed to accept one item as DRE and review another one.
Summary: There was delay in the way the Council progressed adaptations that were required to meet Mr D’s needs. The Council has agreed to apologise to the family, to pay the family £1,200 and to consider a review in its policies.
Summary: There was delay in the Council’s processing of Ms B’s application for adaptations to her flat. The Council also failed to respond to Ms B’s complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms B in writing, pay her £150, give her a decision about installing an L-shaped bath/shower and consider including timescales in its policy on delivering adaptations.
Summary: Mrs B complains that, due to delay in assigning her case to a social worker, her mother Mrs C had to spend fourteen weeks in a care home, instead of the planned six weeks. The Council then wrongly sent her mother a bill for her care. This caused her mother considerable distress. The Ombudsman considers that the waiving of the six weeks’ charges which Mrs C was due to pay, equivalent to £666, represents a suitable remedy for the injustice to Mrs C. The Council has also agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendation that it pay Mrs B £620 in respect of the distress that she experienced, her time and trouble and transport costs.
Summary: Mrs X complained the care home, commissioned by the Council, failed to provide adequate care to her late husband. She was unhappy to pay the outstanding care charges because of this. The Care Quality Commission has considered the care home’s actions and the Council has offered to waive the care charges. I have discontinued the investigation as it is unlikely I could achieve anything more by further investigation.
Summary: The Council is at fault as it cannot evidence it offered a care home place to Mrs Y at the rate it usually expected to pay in 2009. The Council has acknowledged it should have charged a lower top up fee to Mrs Y and has offered to refund £3350 to Mrs Y’s estate. This is an appropriate and proportionate way to remedy Mrs Y’s injustice.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in response to safeguarding concerns raised about the complainant. This is because there is nothing further that we could add to the Council’s investigation of the complaint.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his previous social worker. This is because it is unlikely we would add to the response already provided by the Council’s investigation. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks as we cannot recommend disciplinary action of officers.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about the Council’s decision to change the way it manages direct payments. This is because any further investigation by the Ombudsman could not add to the Council’s response and he could not make a finding of the kind Mr A wants.
Summary: Miss B complains the Council has not put in place a support package for her mother and brother, or support for her as their carer. Miss B says the family are living in an overcrowded home, without adequate support and this is detrimentally affecting their health. The Ombudsman does not find fault with how the Council have managed the family’s social care and housing needs.
Summary: We uphold two of Ms A’s complaints about her late father Mr B’s care: there was poor record keeping around injuries to Mr B and a failure to speak to her about the decision to stop funding a nursing home placement. This was fault and caused Ms A avoidable distress. We have not upheld the rest of Ms A’s complaints. To remedy the injustice, the Council has accepted our recommendation to apologise and make a symbolic payment of £250.
Summary: Ind C complained about the way in which the Council dealt with their request for adaptations (a DFG) to their flat and their request to allocate a social worker. The Ombudsman found there was fault with the way the Council progressed the DFG request and a delay in responding to the complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise and provide a financial remedy for their distress.
Summary: The Council delayed in completing a financial assessment in respect of Mr C’s contribution towards the cost of his care. This was fault but the Ombudsman is satisfied the Council told Mr C’s family of the estimated charges and is entitled to seek to recover them. The Council’s finance team did not act insensitively by requesting payment shortly after Mr C died because it was unaware of his death.
Summary: Mr C complains the Council should not charge Ms M for her temporary stay at a care home, because: the Council failed to explain there would be a charge after two weeks, and the delay of moving Ms M back home was due to the Council. The Ombudsman found that it was wrong for Ms M to suffer a financial injustice, due to the time it took the Council to find a homecare agency. The Council has agreed to apologise and rectify any financial injustice Ms C has experienced.
Summary: Mr X complained about the home care provided by a Council commissioned care provider, Tamworth Home Care. He said it changed the staff rota without telling him and sent care staff he had not previously met. He also said that care staff did not always stay the full duration of the planned visit. There was fault in how the provider delivered its service which caused Mr X frustration and anxiety. The Council should apologise to Mr X and confirm the provider has systems in place to tell people about changes to their care rota.
Summary: We uphold a complaint about a missed care call. This was fault causing avoidable inconvenience to Ms B and avoidable distress to her daughter Ms A. To remedy the injustice, the Council will apologise within one month.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to help him with his problems and his wish to move to alternative accommodation. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s financial assessment. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a blue badge refusal. This is because the complainant has been advised to reapply by the Council due to a recent change in the criteria and it is reasonable to expect them to do this.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint about the number of carers her mother’s Mrs B’s, care provider sent. This is because the care provider has explained the reasons for the increase in different staff and the Ombudsman could not add to this. Mrs A has now changed Mrs B’s care provider so there is no ongoing injustice warranting an Ombudsman investigation.
Summary: Mrs B has complained about her daughter’s treatment by a Council and a Trust on behalf of a Care Commissioning Group. The Ombudsmen find fault with the Council and Trust in relation to a lack of aftercare under s.117 of the Mental Health Act. They also uphold a complaint about the Council and Trust not refunding supported living fees. However, they do not find fault in relation to a residential move which broke down. The Council, Trust and Clinical Commissioning Group have agreed to a number of actions to remedy the impact of the identified faults.
Summary: There was fault by the Council. It cannot evidence that it made sure it could meet Mr B’s care needs within his personal budget. The Council should apologise to him and his family and takeover the payment of the third party top up fees to the care provider until such time as it can show that Mr B’s needs can be met within the budget. There was no fault by the Council in how it advised Mr B’s family about funding or how it assessed Mr B’s contribution to his care charges.
Summary: The Council was not at fault in suspending Direct Payments when it discovered previous payments had not been used to fund the needs identified in Mr X’s care and support plan.
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council does not provide 24-hour support at the accommodation where her late brother lived. This is because Mrs X does not have permission from the residents to complain on their behalf.
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 finds fault in how the Council carried out an initial assessment of needs, communicated with the family and considered the father’s mental capacity.
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council took more than 5 years to assess and complete a disabled facilities’ grant for her mother and the final adaptations do not meet her long-term needs. The Ombudsman cannot investigate her complaint because it is too late. She also complains the Council was late in responding to her complaint. The Ombudsman does not consider Mrs X has suffered a significant injustice on this point which warrants our involvement.
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.
