Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council included a loan in her disability related expenditure and this was not right. It also increased the cost of her care and sent invoices for different amounts. She says this caused her problems sleeping, she felt sick with worry and she cancelled her care. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault in not assessing Mrs X’s DRE for 11 years. The Council will apologise and offer a fresh needs assessment.

Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Council. When Mrs X fell at her care home, there was no safeguarding report made by medical staff and her daughter did not raise a complaint until 8 months after the event. There is no reason for the Council to investigate in the circumstances, where it did not know of any previous history of falls or safeguarding concerns at the time.

Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint about problems at a residential care home. This is because the complaint is late.

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 Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint about damage to Mr and Mrs J’s property by the Council’s client. This is because the issue of liability is one which should be raised in court.

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 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 consider Mr D’s complaint the Council failed to protect his parents from his sister. This is because the complaint is late, and there is not a good reason we should exercise discretion to investigate it.

Summary: Mr X complained the Care Provider, Comfort Call, commissioned by the Council did not properly care for his mother and would not respond to his queries. He also disagreed with an investigation carried out by an independent investigator into his complaint. He said this caused his mother distress and put him to significant time and trouble. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: The care provider failed to provide proper care and treatment to the late Mr X. As a result, he suffered the development of a pressure sore, and a loss of dignity; his family suffered from knowing Mr X did not receive the care they expected. The care provider will now review its staff training and offer a payment to Mr X’s family.

Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council completed a financial assessment of Mrs Y. It properly considered requests for items to be included as disability related expenditure. As there is no evidence of fault in the process, I cannot comment on the merits of the decision reached. The Council is not at fault for levying a charge for Mrs Y’s stay in a residential care home

Summary: Miss X complains the Council acted with fault in moving her from a placement at age 18 when she did not wish to move. The Council has failed to consider her complaint properly under the statutory procedure for complaints by or on behalf of children. It will arrange an investigation at Stage 2 of this procedure immediately.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Care Provider’s management of his great aunt’s finances. We propose not to investigate this complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Care Provider’s actions. Mr X has involved the police, and they are best placed to consider whether a crime has taken place.

Summary: Mrs X complained about items having gone missing from her mother’s care home placement. We should not investigate this complaint. It is impossible for us to say now what happened to the items and we could not achieve a meaningful remedy for Mrs X.

Summary: We do not uphold Ms B’s complaint. There was no water on the bathroom floor when Mr B fell and the Care Provider responded appropriately by seeking medical help for Mr B, by updating his care plans and by referring him to the falls team.

Summary: Ms X complains about the care provided to Mr Y and says this negatively affected the last weeks of his life. The Ombudsman finds the Care Provider caused Mr Y and his family injustice and recommended it reimburse 20% of his care fees. It has agreed to do this and has already apologised and taken action to prevent similar problems in future.

Summary: Mrs C complained the Council stopped her son’s respite care funding, even though he continued to have a need for this. The Ombudsman found fault with the actions of the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy for distress. It will also review the system through which it reallocates respite care funding from one year to the next.

Summary: There were failings in the late Mrs B’s self-funded care in a nursing home including: poor communication with her family, a failure to provide activities, a delay in obtaining the right medication and in asking the GP to refer her to specialist NHS services, a failure to ensure she received a soft diet and hands-on assistance with eating and a delay in providing a final complaint response. This caused her daughter Mrs A avoidable distress. The Care Provider will apologise and pay Mrs A £1000 to reflect this.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to charge his son for care provision. The Council had previously waived his son’s contributions. Mr X says the Council did not complete a mental capacity assessment for his son. He also complains about how the Council completed the financial assessment. The Ombudsman finds some fault with the Council’s actions. However, we do not find fault with the Council’s decision to charge Mr X’s son for his care provision or with the way it completed the financial assessment. We have recommended the Council apologise to Mr X.

Summary: Mr X complains about the care provided to Mrs Y and is concerned about the risk to others. The Ombudsman finds the Care Provider commissioned by the Council was at fault but it took sufficient action to remedy any injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to deal properly with his brother’s finances while he was living in a Nursing Home. The Council failed to sort out Mr X’s Company pension before he died. This caused problems for Mr X as the Executor of his brother’s estate. The Council needs to apologise and pay financial redress.

Summary: Mrs B complains North East Care Homes’ Stainton Lodge Care Centre provided incomplete information to the NHS about her father’s medical circumstances resulting in a delay in him receiving correct medical treatment and his untimely death. It did not tell an out of hours GP that her father was taking antibiotics for a suspected water infection. We cannot say that caused his death. Nevertheless, North East Care Homes needs to apologise and pay financial redress for the distress it has caused.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about the care provider sending him incorrect invoices for his mother’s care home fees. This is because the matter has already been resolved.

Summary: Ms B complains about the care her father received at Foxholes Care Home and says she witnessed an incident where the care staff handled her father in a rough manner. The Ombudsman cannot say there was evidence of fault in the way the staff handled Ms B’s father but there was fault in the provision of the care and the record keeping. The Ombudsman recommends the Home apologises to Ms B and pays her £150.

Summary: Ms R says the Council is at fault for failures, including delay, in preparing a care plan for her son Mr C. She says this has caused both Mr C and herself injustice in that he still does not have a care plan nearly two years after asking for one. Ms C finds this stressful. Although the Council is right to say Mr C has not engaged with its officers, the Council is at fault for failures in the way in which it dealt with Mr C. It has also communicated inadequately with Ms R. The Council has agreed to pay Ms R and Mr C £400 in consideration of the distress caused and to write back to the Ombudsman with a progress report in three months.

Summary: Mr X complains Isle of Wight Council (IWC) failed to meet his mother’s needs properly or his needs as her carer, and West Sussex County Council (WSCC) failed to support his mother properly after June 2018 and ignored his request to stop paying her direct payments to him. WSCC has not failed to support his mother. It failed to take any action in response to Mr X’s request to stop making payments, but this did not cause injustice to him or his mother. IWC did not always implement the mother’s care and support plan, which caused injustice to Mr X. It needs to apologise and pay financial redress.

Summary: Mr X complains Isle of Wight Council (IWC) failed to meet his mother’s needs properly or his needs as her carer, and West Sussex County Council (WSCC) failed to support his mother properly after June 2018 and ignored his request to stop paying her direct payments to him. WSCC has not failed to support his mother. It failed to take any action in response to Mr X’s request to stop making payments, but this did not cause injustice to him or his mother. IWC did not always implement the mother’s care and support plan, which caused injustice to Mr X. It needs to apologise and pay financial redress.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council’s offer to pay £10,260 for his care between 30 November 2015 to 9 September 2016, after cancelling his direct payments, fails to reflect the true cost of his care or the fact he continued to need care after 9 September 2016. There is not enough evidence for me to say the Council’s offer of £10,260 is inadequate.

Summary: Ms A has complained about a Trust and a Council in relation to a delay in discharging her father in law, Mr B, to a care home. The Ombudsmen find fault with the Trust in not making required referrals. However, we do not find fault in relation to the delay in diagnosis of dementia or the issuing of a behaviour warning. In addition, the Ombudsmen do not find fault with the Council in relation to a delay in finding suitable care homes, but it should have provided the family with a copy of Mr B’s initial needs assessment.

Summary: The Council failed to assess Mr Y’s disability related expenditure when it completed a financial assessment of him in 2017. The Council has acknowledged this and has agreed to apologise, waive any charges for that period and reimburse monies Mr Y paid.

Summary: Ms C complained about the way in which the agency, who had arranged her parents’ homecare, had calculated her parents’ invoices. Furthermore, when Ms C raised this with the agency, it was reluctant to accept any fault. The Ombudsman has upheld Ms C’s complaint. The care provider has agreed to provide an apology and reimburse Ms C’s parents. It will also carry out an audit to determine if there are other clients who may have been overcharged.

Summary: Ms X complains that an introductory care agency did not properly deal with her concerns about a carer it supplied for her late father. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the decision to place the carer but does find fault in the agency’s investigation of the complaint.

Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint about an invoice the Council sent for the cost of the complainant’s care. This is because the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: The Council is not at fault for refusing to halve charges for community based social care services. Even though the NHS funds half the care package the Council is not charging more than the cost of its half of the care package.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the care provided to her late mother at the care home. She complained the care provider failed to administer pain relief medication, failed to update risk assessments and care plans, failed to take a urine sample and failed to manage her end of life care. This caused Mrs X significant distress. We have discontinued the investigation because the coroner’s enquiries are ongoing and their conclusions will be directly relevant to any Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We do not uphold most of Ms A’s complaints about the late Mrs B’s care in a care home because her care was in line with personalised care plans. However, there was a failure to give a full explanation of what happened on the day Mrs B died and this caused Ms A, her daughter, avoidable distress. To remedy the injustice, the Care Provider will apologise within one month.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s actions regarding Mr and Mrs C. This is because it is unlikely any further investigation could make a different finding or add to the Council’s response. The Council has apologised for the fault and there is no unremedied injustice warranting an Ombudsman investigation.

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 Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s use of a Section 135 warrant. This is because the complaint is out of our jurisdiction. Most of the matters complained of have been considered in court. Other matters are late, or are more suitable for consideration by another body.

Summary: Mr B complained about the Council overcharging, the late Mr C for care services. We find the Council was at fault for the errors, but we are satisfied it has taken appropriate action to put matters right.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint alleging fault in the actions of Turning Point. There is no evidence to show the complaint concerns adult social care matters therefore it is outside of our jurisdiction.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a financial assessment in respect of care costs. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault in the way that the Council made its decision.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that she is not eligible for a Blue Badge. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.