Summary: The Ombudsmen consider Livewell Southwest missed the opportunity to support Mrs K when her art therapy stopped because of staff sickness. This caused Mr and Mrs K distress which Livewell Southwest should put right. Also, Plymouth City Council should have properly considered Mrs K’s respite request in May 2018. That caused Mrs K uncertainty. The Ombudsmen do not consider Livewell Southwest were at fault in the way it managed Mrs K’s section 117 aftercare with a psychiatrist rather than a care coordinator.

Summary: Mr Y complains on behalf of his wife that the Council did not assess their application for a Blue Badge correctly. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there was no fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Summary: Ms C complained that her mother’s care home said she could no longer stay at the home and did not allow her mother to remain at the home while the family was looking for another home. The Ombudsman found fault, for which the care provider has agreed to apologise.

Summary: the Council avoidably delayed in taking action to resolve matters related to funding significant adaptations to a property above the level of the DFG amount. This fault caused injustice in the form of distress and loss of opportunity which the Council will recognise by apologising and making a payment of £1000 to Mr F. It will also introduce service improvements to ensure that faults identified in the coordination of assessments do not occur in future.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council completed his and his wife’s financial assessments. Mr X said this meant they paid too much towards the costs of their care. The Council was not at fault in the way it calculated Mr and Mrs X’s financial contributions to their care costs.

Summary: The complaint is about how a council decided Mr B’s personal budget for care. We do not uphold most of Ms A’s complaint. However, there was a failure to issue care and support plans which was not in line with sections 24 and 25 of the Care Act 2014. This caused avoidable uncertainty about the agreed funding and services for Mr B. To remedy the injustice, the Council will apologise to Ms A and Mr B within one month.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the way a care home has dealt with the complainant’s concerns, mainly about the suitability of a visitor to her relative. This is because the relative’s care was fully funded by the NHS, at the relevant time, so the complaint lies outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that her son is not entitled to a disabled person’s Blue Badge. This is because, following the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the Council has now agreed to issue a badge. An investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to give the complainant a Blue Badge. This is because the Council has changed its decision and has given the complainant a badge.

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 in the way it made its decision.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s involvement in finding her adult son a community placement to enable his discharge from hospital, where he had to live for around three months without the deprivation of liberty safeguards being properly applied. The Ombudsman found fault in how the Council communicated with Mrs X and her son its search for his community placement. It was also fault for it not to authorise his deprivation of liberty safeguards much sooner. The identified fault caused a significant injustice to Y and Mrs X, and the Council accepted the Ombudsman’s recommended remedy.

Summary: There was fault in the agency’s decision to refuse to give Ms C the spare key to the house she lives in and to double lock the door. The Ombudsman recommends that the agency apologises in writing to Ms C and her daughter Ms B.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to refund care fees. This is because this part of the complaint is late. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the complainant’s concerns about what happened during a tribunal.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the care provider’s response to his request for information. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is the appropriate body to deal with his concerns.

Summary: Mr X complained a Council social worker assaulted him while trying to access his mother’s home. He also complained the social worker provided false information to the police and court. The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint as it concerns a matter considered by court. The police are better placed to deal with Mr X’s complaint.

Summary: Mr X complains about the support provided to Mrs Y by the Council and the way it dealt with his complaints about this, which included safeguarding concerns. He says this impacted significantly on Mrs Y’s health and wellbeing and caused the family much distress, time and trouble. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault in all these issues. The Council will apologise and pay Mr X £500. It will also check all residents have adequate care plans and records and monitor improvements. It will also re-train staff in complaint handling.

Summary: The Ombudsmen found fault by the Council and Livewell Southwest with regards to their communication with the complainant about care charges. However, the Ombudsmen are satisfied this did not result in a significant injustice for the complainant.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the amount the Council says the complainant must pay towards the cost of their care. This is because it is unlikely he would find fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council charging his sister, Ms C for care she should not have paid. This is because the Council has reassessed Mrs C’s finances and repaid all monies owed. There is no unremedied injustice warranting an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not tell the complainant she would have to pay for her home care. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council would not add PhD study to his pathway plan, delayed repaying expenses and refused to cover other expenses. He says he is out of pocket by over £1,000. The Council did not deal adequately with his complaint and inappropriately used its vexatious complainants’ policy. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault in delay repaying Mr X. The Council has agreed to pay Mr X interest on the money owed. It will also repay any shortfall on the cost of holiday accommodation if Mr X provides the necessary information and will review the way it deals with Mr X.

Summary: There was a failure to seek timely dental care for the late Mrs B and poor communication by the Care Provider about her pain relief. The Care Provider’s complaint response also contained inaccurate information about contact with the GP. This caused Mrs B’s daughter Ms A avoidable distress. The Care Provider will apologise within one month of my final decision.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to complete repairs to his bathroom as required by a previous Ombudsman decision. The information provided shows that although the Council took the action required issues outside of its control meant the works were not completed. The Council has agreed to Mr X’s request to pay him so he can now arrange the necessary works himself.