Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council assessed his disability related expenditure. He said this put financial strain on him and his son. The Council has taken appropriate action to resolve the outstanding issues. Therefore, I have discontinued my investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsmen do not consider NHS Devon CCG’s decision to stop Mr U’s personal health budget for his section 117 aftercare was made with fault. Devon Partnership NHS Trust’s assessment of Mr U’s needs was robust and there was no fault in the way it decided a care agency could support his needs. Also, the Ombudsmen do not consider Devon Partnership NHS Trust were at fault for not providing Mr U with a care coordinator after March 2018.

Summary: The Ombudsmen do not consider NHS Devon CCG’s decision to stop Mr U’s personal health budget for his section 117 aftercare was made with fault. Devon Partnership NHS Trust’s assessment of Mr U’s needs was robust and there was no fault in the way it decided a care agency could support his needs. Also, the Ombudsmen do not consider Devon Partnership NHS Trust were at fault for not providing Mr U with a care coordinator after March 2018.

Summary: Mrs D complained about how the Council managed charging for her father’s care. However, there was no fault in how the Council dealt with the matters raised by Mrs D.

Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of his late father, Mr Y, about the Council’s failure to notify him of care home fees until after Mr Y had passed away. As a result, Mr X says he was caused distress and inconvenience because he was presented with an large and unexpected bill for care services. On the evidence seen so far, the Ombudsman has identified some fault because the Council has been unable to show what Mr Y and Mr X were told about care home fees while Mr Y was in hospital, and took too long to initiate the financial assessment. However, this did not lead to significant injustice to Mr Y because he would have had to pay the fees even if the fault had not occurred. But there was injustice to Mr X and the Ombudsman has recommended the Council should apologise and make a small payment to him.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council reduced their relative’s care package without fully reviewing her care and support plan. They say this left her without appropriate support for over five weeks which increased the risk of harm. They also complained the Council did not involve them in decisions about her care. The Council was at fault, but this did not cause Ms Y an injustice. It did not complete a full review of her care and support needs before reducing her care package. The Council has accepted it was at fault and has reinstated the original package. It has also accepted that future reviews should fully review the care and support plan and agreed to involve Mr and Mrs X in future decision-making. These are appropriate actions to improve the service it provides to Ms Y.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint alleging a council officer was rude during a telephone call. This is because we are unlikely to add anything more to the Council’s previous investigation.

Summary: The complainant, Mrs X, says the Council is at fault in its handling of payments for respite care for her son. The Ombudsman has not found any evidence of fault by the Council and he has therefore completed his investigation of this complaint.

Summary: The Council did not persuade Mr X to move into his current accommodation or fail to help him consider a further move.

Summary: Mr Y, who complains on behalf of Mr X, says the Council is wrongly seeking contributions towards the cost of a care package that does not meet Mr X’s needs. The Ombudsman has found evidence of fault that has caused Mr X an injustice. He recommended the Council apologises to Mr X, uses a ‘light touch’ approach in future financial assessments for him and tailors any Disability Related Expense forms to reflect expenses relevant to Mr X. The Council agreed.

Summary: The complaint is about the care commissioned by the Council to meet Mr B’s social care needs. There was fault by the Council in the time taken to commission care when one service provision ended and fault in the level of care provided by two care agencies acting on behalf of the Council. The Council will apologise to Mr B and make a payment to him.

Summary: Ms B complains about the care provided to her adult son, Mr X by the Council through a care provider commissioned to meet his needs. The investigation is discontinued as Ms B has started court action which will consider the same matters raised in the complaint.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has taken far too long to resolve problems with works carried out under a disabled facilities grant, which should have been completed in June 2018. Mr & Mrs X were left with adaptations which were not fit for purpose for over a year. The Council needs to apologise, pay financial redress and improve its working practices.

Summary: Mrs X complained that she was prevented from visiting her mother after she complained about her care. We have stopped investigating this complaint as the issues are to be considered by the courts and the Ombudsman cannot investigate further.

Summary: Mr X and Mrs D complain about the way the Council reduced his package of care. They say the decision was made without involving his family. On the evidence seen so far, the Ombudsman has not found fault in what the Council did.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to assess his brother-in-law’s care needs properly, appointed an Advocate for him when this is not necessary, and has failed to confirm that it will extend the lease on his brother’s home. There is no evidence of fault causing injustice significant enough to warrant a remedy.

Summary: Ms B complains about the care provided to her father, Mr B, when he returned home from hospital and about the consideration of him for extra care housing. There was fault in the Council’s handling of care provision for Mr B, in its consideration of his suitability for extra care housing, the handling of a respite placement and in its complaint handling. In recognition of the injustice caused to Ms B and the family the Council should make a payment to her.

Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council arranged a long-term residential placement for her mother. The Ombudsman has found no fault by the Council. The Council’s communication about negotiation of top up fees should have been better. It has agreed to apologise to Ms X.

Summary: The complaint is about a delay in completing disabled adaptations to a property the Council had found for the complainants to move to. And about a lack of updates. The Ombudsman upholds the complaint and has agreed remedies with the Council.

Summary: There is no fault by the Council in the way it assessed Mrs Y prior to her return home from hospital. An assessment of Mrs Y’s capacity at the time concluded she was able to decide about returning home. The Council acted in accordance with the law.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs Q’s complaint about a carer who took photographs of her without her knowledge or consent. The Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with it.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to return his blue badge application fee. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the Council’s actions to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: Mr C complains he was not supported appropriately after he adopted his son. He says the Council failed to properly involve him in his son’s care, once his son left home, and did not investigate his complaints appropriately. Mr C could have come to us sooner about some of his complaints. There is evidence of fault in relation to a meeting arranged with Mr C that was never held.

Summary: The Council has admitted there was fault in the way it calculated Mrs C’s care home fees and the information it gave. The Council has agreed to exercise discretion and says it will not include Mrs C’s home in its calculation of her capital which greatly reduces the outstanding debt. As this outcome is more than the Ombudsman could achieve, the Ombudsman has closed the investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council was pursuing her for her late father’s care home fees from 2015. We have stopped investigating because Mrs X has not complained to us within the normal 12 month period and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to accept the complaint now.

Summary: Miss X complains the Care Home provided poor quality care and accommodation, causing financial loss and distress. The Ombudsman is satisfied with the actions already taken by the Care Home to remedy any injustice and prevent recurrence.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to give the complainant a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council handled her safeguarding concerns about her late father, Mr X. This is because Mr X withdrew consent for the Council to share information with Mrs X before he died. Therefore, Mrs X is not a suitable person to make this complaint.

Summary: Ms X complains about her dealings with a social worker over funding for her late partner’s stay in a care home as well as the care her late partner received while in the home. I found fault by the Council.

Summary: The Council failed to ensure that Ms B had continuity of care when she moved to Cornwall and this was fault. The Council also did not write to Ms B to explain how it decided to reduce Ms B’s care package by 13 hours and gave conflicting information about what she could use the direct payments for. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms B, repay her for the missed provision, pay her £300, write to Ms B to explain the reduction in the care plan and review the assessment and care plan.

Summary: Miss F complains the Council failed to support her whilst she managed her mother and sister’s care and support. She also complains about their care and support plans and financial assessments. The Council has accepted there was fault which caused injustice to Miss F and has apologised. It has agreed to make a payment to Miss F and make improvements to its processes.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s delay in carrying out adaptations to meet her son’s needs. We have ended the investigation because the Housing Ombudsman deals with complaints about councils as social landlords and is considering Miss X’s complaint.

Summary: The Ombudsmen find fault with the Council and CCG for delays in reviewing and increasing support for the complainant, Mr C. This caused Mr C worry and uncertainty for a prolonged period. He is likely to have missed out on some care and support during this time. There was also an impact on Mr C’s mother. The Council and CCG have agreed to take action to provide a remedy to Mr C and Mrs C.