Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council delivered part of a remedy that the Ombudsman recommended in a previous decision.

Summary: Mr B complained about the standard of care provided to his father in law, failure to take prompt action to identify a new care provider which led to Mr C missing out on care provision, failure to take action when he raised concerns about a new call time, Council officers speaking inappropriately to his wife and failure to offer a satisfactory remedy. There were failings in the care provided to Mr C and there is no evidence the Council followed that up with the care provider. There is no fault in the remainder of the complaint investigated by the Ombudsman. A financial remedy, apology and ensuring the care provider carries out the training promised is satisfactory remedy to reflect the distress caused to Mr B and his wife and the time and trouble they had to go to pursuing their complaint.

Summary: Ms D complains GB Care Ltd has charged the wrong fees and had no contract for her father’s residential care fees. The Ombudsman has found there was fault causing injustice. The care provider has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms D. Ms D should now settle the outstanding fees.

Summary: the complainant says the Council failed to properly consider his son’s views on respite care resulting in his son absconding from respite care and placing himself in danger. The Council agrees it should have referred the complainant’s son to an independent advocate earlier and offers £500 in recognition of its fault. The Ombudsman finds the Council acted with fault.

Summary: There was fault in the Care Provider’s assessment of Ms D’s needs because it failed to consult with her attorney or seek relevant information from the NHS. There was also a failure to send relevant information about fees or a copy of the contract to the attorney. This caused Mrs C avoidable frustration and confusion. The Care Provider will apologise and take other action described in this statement to prevent recurrence in other cases.

Summary: Mr C complains on behalf of himself and his aunt, whom I shall call Ms X. Mr C complains about the way in which the Council responded to concerns, which were raised against him, about the way in which he supported his aunt. The Ombudsman found fault, which resulted in distress to Mr C that could have been avoided. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr C and pay him a financial remedy for distress.

Summary: the care provider did not adhere to the care plan to keep Mrs X’s nails clean, and did not adhere to its complaints procedure. It should apologise formally for its shortcomings, ensure its compliance with the care plan and make a payment of £250 in recognition of the unnecessary time and trouble Mr and Mrs A were caused in making a complaint.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s actions surrounding its withdrawal of her blue badge. There is no fault with the way the Council reached its decision and we have not upheld Ms X’s complaint.

Summary: Ms C complained about the way in which the Council carried out her financial reassessment, and her appeal against her contribution. The Ombudsman found the Council failed to carry out an annual reassessment for Ms C. It also did not deal with her complaint in a timely manner. The Council has agreed to provide a remedy for Ms C’s distress and backdate her NiL contribution to April 2018.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to act to safeguard her sister, Mrs Z, from harm. She says it also failed to carry out a proper safeguarding review after Mrs Z’s death and that these failings have caused distress to her family. There was no fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to provide care and support following the withdrawal of his existing carers. He also complained about the subsequent reduction of his care and support package. This caused distress and inconvenience to both Mr X and his family, including his sister, Mrs D. The Ombudsman has found the Council to be at fault when it did not find a replacement care provider. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X and Mrs D. The Ombudsman has not found fault with the outcome of the recent assessment. The number of care hours is a matter of professional judgement for the Council to determine.

Summary: Mrs D complains the Council has failed to meet her adult daughter’s care and support needs since February 2019. The Council has accepted there was fault and apologised. It has agreed to make a payment to Mrs D and her daughter to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Mr C has complained that the hours of support he receives per week, has not been enough to meet his needs. The Ombudsman has not upheld Mr C’s complaint.

Summary: Mrs X complains on behalf of her daughter. She says that the Council has failed to take all her Disability Related Expenditure into account, as part of her financial assessment. The Ombudsman has found no fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that her cousin, Mrs Y, is not eligible for NHS continuing Healthcare funding because the Council is not responsible for this decision. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that her cousin has been overcharged for her residential care because it is unlikely that we would find Mrs Y has been caused an injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about care home fees because an investigation is unlikely to add to the responses Ms B has already received.

Summary: The Council has agreed to pay the top up fee for Mrs X’s residential care home. The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation because the Council has resolved the complaint.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council’s handling of her care contributions means she cannot afford care packages and has built up significant debt. There is no fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: Miss B’s parents complain on her behalf that the Council moved her out of supported living against her wishes and did not share information with the police about safeguarding concerns. Miss B’s parents say this has put their daughter at risk because she cannot manage a property independently and has been a victim of domestic abuse. The Ombudsman has not found fault with the Council. The Ombudsman has not investigated the complaint made that the Council did not support Miss B to transition from children to adult services because it is late.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to charge the complainant for his care and support. This is because it is unlikely he would find fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not take any action when he raised concerns about financial and emotional abuse of his mother by his brother. We should not investigate this late complaint. Mr X could have complained sooner but in any event, it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s actions or be able to achieve a meaningful outcome for Mr X.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to keep Mr Q up to date about his partner. We are unlikely to find fault with the Council. And the injustice Mr Q has suffered because of the alleged fault is not sufficient to justify an investigation.

Summary: Mrs B complains about the actions of a care provider arranged by the Council, and about how the Council dealt with safeguarding concerns and her complaint. The Ombudsman finds there was some fault by the Council in respect of safeguarding and complaint handling. Some steps have been taken to address the issues arising from the complaint, and apologies have been given. The Council agreed to make a payment to Mrs B in recognition of avoidable time and trouble taken in pursuing this matter, in line with the Ombudsman’s recommendation.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint alleging the Council has failed to safeguard the complainant. This is because the Council appears to have responded appropriately and an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to add anything more to the Council’s investigation.

Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council decided to invoice Mr B for backdated care charges and the way it communicated with him about the debt.

Summary: The investigation into this complaint will be discontinued. The care agency told Mr X it would be able to meet his late mother’s care needs when she was discharged from hospital. After assessing her needs, it decided it could not. It has apologised to Mr X. Any further investigation by this office would not achieve any more.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a care package the Council put in place following Mrs Q’s stay in hospital. This is because it is unlikely further investigation by us will lead to a different outcome. And the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider Mrs Q’s concerns about a data breach.

Summary: The Ombudsman has no legal power to investigate Mr X’s complaint about information a Council social worker provided to the Family Court and the social worker’s conduct in relation to court proceedings.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s late complaint about the actions of the Council regarding her grandmother, Mrs D. This is because Mrs B could have come to the Ombudsman sooner. There is not enough evidence of fault with the Council’s actions warranting the Ombudsman to disapply the law and investigate this late complaint.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of contact with him over a change in the cost of live-in care for his late aunt. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mr X. The Council has taken action to remedy that injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsmen found fault with a Hospital Trust’s communication with a patient’s family about discharge arrangements. However, there was no fault with the decisions to discharge the patient back to her own home or subsequently to a rehabilitation placement. The Ombudsmen also found fault by a Council not completing a carer visit for 15-hours after the patient returned home. This caused the patient and her family distress. The Council and the Trust have agreed to the Ombudsmen’s recommendations to ensure learning is taken from the complaint and ensure the faults do not happen again. They will also apologise to the complainant for the distress caused by the faults identified.

Summary: The actions of the care provider did not cause injustice to Ms X.

Summary: Ms B complains Quality Care Services Bedford changed the times of her calls when she came out of hospital in February 2019 and then cancelled calls with little notice, leaving her without care. Quality Care Services Bedford should not have been providing personal care to Ms B, as it is not registered to do so with the Care Quality Commission. However, there is not enough evidence of injustice arising from its actions to justify recommending a remedy.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of her disabled facilities grant (DFG) application between 2009 and 2019. She says the Council mishandled her application and provided incorrect information. We find fault with the Council for some delays in the DFG process. There is also fault with the Council’s complaint handling. We have recommended the Council apologise and make a financial payment.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled its review of his father’s financial assessment to calculate contributions towards care fees. The Council is currently reviewing new information from Mr X. It is reasonable to allow the Council an opportunity to complete the review before the Ombudsman considers Mr X’s complaint.