Summary: Mr X complains that inadequate care at a care home led to his mother developing an infection and gangrene. The Ombudsman has discontinued this complaint because it is outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: The Council failed to manage expectations when making transition arrangements for adult social care support following the end of a residential college placement. The Council proposed a move in date when arrangements were ongoing. This caused Mr C and his parents some anxiety and caused Mr & Mrs B the time and trouble of trying to get answers and pursuing a complaint. The Council should apologise and pay £200 to Mr C and to Mr & Mrs B.

Summary: We have no legal power to investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has not properly answered his questions about why it supported his disabled sister to contest their late mother’s will. This is because it relates to the start of court action.

Summary: the complainant says the Council has without warning charged him a contribution towards his care costs and has failed to fully consider his disability related expenses. The Council says it has applied the current law, guidance and policy and considered all relevant disability related expenses. The Ombudsman finds the Council acted without fault in deciding and reviewing the complainant’s contribution to his care costs.

Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain the Council refused to allow their relative to begin re-attending a day care centre she had previously attended, after she returned to her own home from residential care. The Ombudsman finds there was no fault by the Council in this matter.

Summary: We uphold a complaint about failures in Mr D’s home care. The Council failed to ensure Mr D’s care was delivered in line with his eligible needs. Care was not in line with section 18 of the Care Act, which was fault causing avoidable distress. To remedy the injustice, the Council will apologise and pay Mr D £1000.

Summary: The Ombudsman should not pursue this complaint about the care provider’s actions. This is mainly because the central part of the complaint, concerning disputed care charges, is a matter for the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s late complaint that the Council overpaid a taxi firm for her son’s transport to day care. Ms X has not complained in the normal 12 month period and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to accept the complaint now.

Summary: Mrs C complains about the quality of care the Council provided to her late husband. There was fault in the way care records were recorded and maintained. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs C to remedy the injustice caused. It has also agreed to remind its care provider about the importance of maintaining accurate records.

Summary: Miss X complains about the failure of the Council to put in place a suitable package of care for her since the Ombudsman’s last investigation ended in March 2018. She also complains about various interactions she has had with the Council since then on many topics. The Ombudsman found no evidence of fault in any of the complaints made by Miss X. It has made reasonable efforts to engage with Miss X and continues to offer her a care package it believes meets her needs, while she disputes the outcome of a Care Act assessment meeting in 2017.

Summary: Mr C receives direct payments from the Council to fund a package of care and support. The Ombudsman has not found evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the way Mr C could use his direct payments.

Summary: The Council has already admitted that there was fault when there was an incident involving Mrs D at the care home. The Ombudsman recommends that the Council apologises in writing to Mrs D and her daughter, identifies an alternative care home that Mrs D could move to and reminds the care home to complete the risk assessment relating to Mrs D.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council’s provision of care to Mr Y, causing distress. The Ombudsman finds no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain the Council has failed to provide care to Mr Z, causing distress. The Ombudsman finds no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council’s refusal to increase Mr W’s support hours, causing distress. The Ombudsman finds no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain the Council has refused to provide care to Mr V, causing distress. The Ombudsman finds no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making process.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council’s decisions on Mr T’s care, causing Mr T and them distress. The Ombudsman finds no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about the Council withholding video evidence from him. This is because Mr A can ask the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to consider whether he can have access to data he believes he is entitled to, but the Council is refusing to let him have.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not pursue this complaint about comments made when the Care Provider assessed Mr Y. This is because there is not a significant enough injustice for the Ombudsman to pursue the matter.

Summary: Ms C complained about the way in which the Council made decisions about her (late) father’s care, and the way it carried out his financial assessment. Ms C and the Council agreed a settlement during the course of the investigation, as a result of which the Ombudsman decided to discontinue his investigation.

Summary: The Council has accepted it caused confusion and anxiety to the complainant for failures in its charging processes. It has agreed to waive historic charges and allocate a specific worker for the complainant to contact. The Council failed to deal with the complainant’s complaint properly and provided confusing and conflicting information which added to her anxiety. The Council has agreed to apoloigse for these failures and make procedural changes.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about the actions of the Council regarding communication with him. This is because the Ombudsman could not provide Mr A with a different outcome to that already given by the Council even if he investigated.

Summary: There is evidence of fault in this complaint. Social workers failed to communicate effectively with Miss Y and her mother after Miss Y was discharged from hospital to her mother’s home. This caused Miss Y and Mrs X anxiety and stress, but it did not result in any delay or loss of service to Miss Y. It did result in a delay in the completion of a carers assessment of Miss Y’s mother.

Summary: The Ombudsman has not found evidence of fault in the way the Council carried out a financial assessment of Mrs E to decide whether she was eligible for funding by the Council.

Summary: The Council failed to properly explain the complainant would be charged for adult social care. This is fault. However, the Ombudsman considers the Council has taken appropriate steps to remedy the injustice this caused, and so has completed his investigation.

Summary: The investigation into this complaint will be discontinued. There is no fault by the Care Provider in keeping care fees in lieu of notice. Any further investigation by this office could not achieve the outcome Mrs X is seeking, which is repayment of the care fees.

Summary: We do not uphold complaints about the use of Mrs A’s direct payment or about a lack of reviews and welfare checks. There was a delay in issuing a care and support plan to Mrs A, this was fault but caused no injustice as the Council was already paying the direct payment.

Summary: The Council failed to review Mrs X’s care needs for four years. When it did the process caused Mrs X distress. The Council has apologised for this. However, it failed to offer a suitable remedy for the delay in reviewing care needs. We have made recommendations to address this.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about being underpaid for her role as a shared lives carer in 2015-2016. The complaint lies outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because it is late.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about the Council’s actions regarding its assessment of his parents, Mr and Mrs B. This is because the Council has agreed to remedy the fault so there is no unremedied injustice for the Ombudsman to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about residential care charges from 2014 - 2015. The complaint is late, and I do not see good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate now.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint about the Council’s decision to treat her mother-in-law, Mrs B, as having capacity to decide where she should live in 2007 or its failure to complete a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) assessment in 2009. This is because the Council’s actions have not caused Mrs B a significant enough injustice to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: Mrs B complains that the Council was wrong to decide that her father, Mr C, deliberately deprived himself of assets and reduced his capital so as not to have to pay for his care costs. There was fault in the way the Council carried out its assessment because it did not take Mr and Mrs C’s joint ownership of their former home into account. It also did not properly consider whether the costs of renovating Mr C’s current home should be deducted from the calculation of his capital. The Ombudsman considers that a review of the financial assessment is a suitable remedy for any injustice caused to Mrs B and her father.

Summary: There is no evidence that the actions of the care provider caused injustice to the late Mr X. There were some disagreements about food quality and timing which the care provider sought to resolve. The care provider appropriately reported a near-miss incident with medication. The care provider sought medical attention promptly for Mr X.

Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council had reduced Mr C’s care provision without consultation. We found the Council has not reduced the provision, but did not communicate this clearly to Mrs B. The Council has clarified the current position and apologised for the lack of clarity.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the standard of care her mother received in a care home. This is because there is an ongoing safeguarding enquiry into the events about which Mrs X complains. Mrs X can bring her complaint to the Ombudsman once this process has concluded.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about the actions of the Council in connection with his sister’s, Ms B’s care. This is because there is no ongoing injustice to Ms B warranting an Ombudsman investigation. Mr A could have challenged the defamatory remarks made by a council officer in court. These are not matters the Ombudsman can consider.