Summary: Mrs X complained a care home failed to seek appropriate medical advice after her mother became unwell during a Council-arranged respite stay. She says this caused her mother unnecessary suffering and has caused her distress. The care provider has accepted it should have been more proactive in seeking medical advice and has taken action to improve its services. The Council will now ask the care home provider to apologise to Mrs X and acknowledge the distress caused. I also found evidence of poor record keeping and the Council has agreed action to improve this.

Summary: Mr X complained Helping Hands sent inexperienced carers to look after his father, Mr Y. He said this caused his father distress and put him to unnecessary time and trouble. There was fault in the Care Provider’s actions because the carers were inexperienced, there was no up to date care plan in place and some visits were late and poorly spaced out. This caused some injustice for Mr X and Mr Y. The Care Provider has put forward a satisfactory remedy for Mr Y. It has agreed to make a payment to Mr X and remind staff of the need to accurately complete care visit records.

Summary: We uphold Mr D’s complaints. The Council failed to act in line with sections 194 and188 of the Housing Act 1996 and with sections 9 and 42 of the Care Act 2014 when dealing with Mr D. The Council also failed to consider the need to make reasonable adjustments to its services. This was fault and caused avoidable Mr D anxiety. To remedy the injustice, the Council has agreed to: take a homeless application, consider whether it needs to provide interim accommodation, carry out a social care assessment and establish whether there is any current risk of abuse to Mr D in Westminster before agreeing with him whether he wishes to be referred to another area’s safeguarding adults team or to the police. Mr D will need to attend the Council’s offices for appointments with housing and social care staff and he will need to sign consent forms.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint concerning matters from April 2018. This is because the complaint has been made late and there are no good reasons for us to exercise discretion and investigate now.

Summary: The Ombudsmen do not agree Haringey Clinical Commissioning Group should have commissioned a day care centre to meet Q’s needs during the holiday period. The Ombudsmen do not consider there was fault in the way London Borough of Haringey carried out Mr and Mrs P’s carers assessments. However, it should have completed them when it was aware Q’s care package would significantly change.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Care Provider gave notice to Mrs Y when he complained. He said it did not alert him to her worsening health and failed to take medical advice about her recovery. The Ombudsman finds the Care Provider caused injustice to Mrs Y and Mr X when it gave notice and in some other aspects of the complaint. He recommends the Care Provider apologise to Mr X and review its complaints process. Also, to ensure it has a suitable process in place to deal with difficult relationships.

Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of her mother about the way the Council handled her mother’s social care package when she was discharged home from hospital. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault in the way it handled the financial elements of the care. The Council has agreed a payment of £250 to acknowledge distress caused to Ms X’s mother and a payment of £100 to Ms X for her time and trouble sorting out the finances for her mother. The Council has also agreed to review its procedures to prevent invoicing delays in future.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council’s care provider, Cygnet Care Services Ltd, failed to care properly for her son, resulting in him suffering severe constipation and losing a lot of weight. There were failings to communicate properly with Mrs X and a GP about her son’s health, which prevented a holistic approach being taken. The Council needs to apologise and take action to prevent similar problems from happening again.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council reduced his care package and amount of direct payments following the closure of the independent living fund. This resulted in Mr X having to top up his care costs until the Council reassessed him and increased his direct payments. The Ombudsman finds fault with how the Council carried out the reassessment following the closure of the independent living fund and its subsequent review. The Ombudsman has made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused which the Council has agreed to.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with care costs for his mother-in-law. The Council was at fault for a delay in applying a credit to the account, failing to respond to a key letter, inconsistent information about invoices and failing to send invoices to Mr X. It should apologise and pay Mr X for the uncertainty and time and trouble caused.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the outcome of her complaint about a carer. This is because it is unlikely we could add to the response already provided via the care provider’s investigation. Also, the Ombudsman cannot consider disciplinary matters.

Summary: Ms B complains about the Council’s treatment of her in relation to the care of her partner. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council in how it has dealt with matters and no grounds on which to base an investigation.

Summary: Ms C complained about the hourly rate the Council pays her for supporting her daughter at night, as well as about the date on which this payment should have started and the time it took until she received her first payment. The Ombudsman found there was a two-week delay in June 2019 that should have been avoided.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council considered income from an investment bond when calculating his wife’s contribution to the cost of her care. The Council was not at fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a member of staff in an extra care facility. This is because I am unlikely to add anything more to the investigation already carried out by the Council.

Summary: The Council failed to regularly reassess Miss B’s finances to decide what contribution she should make to the cost of her care. It also failed to do enough to ensure Miss B knew how to report changes to her financial situation. This resulted in Miss B receiving an invoice for £2513.18 for backdated charges. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss B and to write off the backdated charges.

Summary: The complainant says the Council placed her late husband in a nursing home that did not meet his needs rather than a hospice causing him to suffer and distress to the family. The Council says it arranged a place in a nursing home following an assessment where the nursing home said it could meet the resident’s needs and liaised with hospice staff in providing end of life care. In deciding on the nursing home, the Council considered its proximity to the family home, so the resident benefitted from family visits. The Council investigated complaints about the nursing home but found the care provided acceptable. The Ombudsman finds the Council acted without fault.

Summary: Ms B complains about the standard of care provided to her mother when she was on end of life care. There is insufficient evidence to make a finding of fault as many issues are one person’s word against another. The care records show the Care Provider was giving an adequate standard of care, and meeting Mrs C’s needs.

Summary: The Ombudsman proposes to discontinue his investigation of this complaint, about the complainant’s contribution to his social care fees. This is because the Council has now offered to waive the outstanding balance, and this is the most an investigation by the Ombudsman could achieve.

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 Council was not at fault in the way it decided to discharge Mrs X into a care home.

Summary: The delay in the financial assessment was not the fault of the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint that Council officers lied to her about her son’s, Mr B’s accommodation. This is because any further investigation by the Ombudsman could not add to the Council’s response or make a finding of the kind Mrs A wants.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue the complainant with a disabled person’s freedom pass (travel pass). This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms B complains about what happened when the hospital discharged her father. The complaint has concerns about both the Council and NHS Trust. At this stage Ms B has not made a complaint to the NHS Trust. It is better for the Ombudsmen to investigate the whole complaint, so I have discontinued investigation at this stage. The NHS Trust should be allowed the opportunity to investigate. If they cannot resolve Ms B’s complaint she can revert to the Ombudsmen for a full investigation. It is difficult to separate the issues about the Council from the issues about the NHS Trust.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Care Act assessments carried out by the Council for her mother, Mrs Y, and her over several years. The Ombudsman finds there was fault by the Council when it reduced Mrs Y’s support plan in 2016 without an evidenced reduction in her eligible needs. It was also fault to expect Ms X to carry out some of these functions instead when she had clearly expressed concerns and to give her an inadequate budget to do so. This caused a significant injustice to Ms X. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising and paying her half the amount it saved because of its decision.