Summary: Mrs Y complained on behalf of her mother, Mrs X that the Council gave incorrect and misleading advice about charging for Mrs X’s care after she left hospital to go into interim care. The Council did not adequately explain the charging basis. It has agreed to cancel charges up to when it was decided Mrs X would live permanently at the care home. This is an appropriate remedy.

Summary: The care provider was not at fault in deciding not to readmit the late Mrs X to a residential placement once her nursing needs were evident. It could have communicated at an earlier stage with her family about Mrs X’s increasing needs. It has already apologised and taken action to review its systems, however, and those actions have remedied any injustice to Mrs X’s family.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about charging the complainant’s parents for their care fees. This is because the substantive complaint is made late and there are no good reasons to exercise the Ombudsman’s discretion to consider it now. Additionally we could add nothing further to the Council’s response to the issue of delay in its complaint handling.

Summary: Miss X complained the care home commissioned by the Council terminated her mother’s respite care after only two weeks because it could not meet her needs. The Council was not at fault. The care home decided based on the initial information that it could meet Mrs F’s needs. It reviewed this after an incident occurred and decided it could no longer meet her needs. However, the care home did not produce a care and support plan for Mrs F. The Council was at fault but there was no evidence this caused Mrs F an injustice. It agreed to remind the care home to complete care and support plans for all residents, in line with the regulations.

Summary: Mr X says the Council is at fault in how it handled works agreed as part of a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). The Ombudsman found some evidence of fault but considers the Council has already provided a suitable remedy for the matters he can consider. He has therefore completed the investigation.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council was at fault in the way it managed a Disabled Facilities Grant for works to her bathroom leaving her with unfinished work. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters.

Summary: There was no fault, based on evidence the Ombudsman has seen, in the Council’s decision to charge Ms C for Council funded residential care or in its conclusion that Ms C was not eligible to section 117 after care. The Council has already upheld Mr B’s complaint that there were errors in Ms C’s records. The Council has agreed to apologise and to pay £100 for the distress caused by the errors.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A’s complaint about the care provider’s decision it could no longer offer her mother, Mrs B, a placement at its care home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the care provider.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to renew the complainant’s Blue Badge due to alleged mis-use. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s involvement in his mother’s care. We will not investigate this complaint as it relates to matters that have been decided by the Court of Protection.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the renewal of a Blue Badge. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the actions of the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has removed his mother into care and will not disclose her location. This is because an investigation is unlikely to find fault. Furthermore, Mr X does not have consent to complain on Mrs X’s behalf and Mrs X has capacity to make her own decisions.

Summary: Ms X complained about the care her mother, Mrs Y, received at a care home, and about items having gone missing. We will not investigate this late complaint. There is not a good reason the issues were not raised sooner after Mrs Y passed away, which was in 2016.

Summary: Mrs T complained the Council did not properly consider carer’s mileage costs for helping her son access the community. The Ombudsman found the Council was at fault in the way it handled this matter. We recommended a remedy which the Council has agreed.

Summary: there was no fault in the Council’s assessment of Mr Y’s social care needs and support planning in the period before he left school and moved to a specialist post 19 college. There was fault in the way the Council considered a request for post 19 transport assistance for Mr Y. This caused injustice to Mr Y’s mother, Ms X, because she had to drive him to college which is some distance from their home. The Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy.

Summary: The Council failed to ensure the commissioned care provider (Lodge Care) adhered to the care and support plan for Mrs X. As a result meals and medication were missed and her family was caused considerable anxiety. The Council could not respond fully to the family’s complaint because the care provider’s records were in a process of change. The Council agrees a payment to recognise the anxiety caused by poor care as well as the additional time, trouble and expense caused.

Summary: There was some delay before Mrs X was assessed for NHS funding but that did not cause any injustice. The fee waiver already offered by the care provider is sufficient to remedy the inconvenience caused by the delay.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to assess his needs properly before deciding to cut his personal budget by two thirds, leaving him without the care he needs. There is no evidence of fault so we cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision.

Summary: The Council delayed in confirming Mr Y’s need for permanent residential care. This caused his family unnecessary distress. It also failed to communicate effectively with Mr Y’s daughter. This caused further frustration and distress.

Summary: The Ombudsmen find there was fault by a Trust in giving a family incorrect information about a mental health patient’s status. When this came to light it caused the patient’s wife considerable stress which has not yet been fully addressed. The Ombudsmen also find that fault by a Council meant the patient’s wife suffered this stress for too long. The Ombudsmen has recommended small financial payments to act as an acknowledgement of the outstanding injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs Q’s complaint about the Council’s decision to stop paying her son’s transport costs to attend his placement. This is because the complaint has been resolved and Mrs Q wishes to withdraw it.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s delay in assessing him and his wife for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). This is because the Council has accepted and apologised for the delay and it is unlikely any further investigation by the Ombudsman could achieve any more than this.

Summary: Mr X complains about his care needs assessment, care plan, and the Council’s handling of his financial assessment. He also complains about the Council’s role in his disabled facilities grant application to the district council and that the Council would not complete a continuing healthcare checklist for him. The Ombudsman finds some fault with the Council’s actions regarding its role in the continuing health care checklist. However, the fault did not cause Mr X a significant injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. The Council has taken reasonable steps to address Mr R’s complaint and remedy his injustice. Also, there is not a significant injustice to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council handled the care costs when her father went into residential care. The Council was not at fault for the way it handled the care costs nor for asking Mrs X to repay direct payments in the circumstances. It was at fault for a delay in pursuing community care charges and should apologise for this.

Summary: There was fault in how the Council carried out its initial assessments of Mrs Z’s care needs, and how it responded when made aware that carers were unable to carry out care in accordance with Mrs Z’s support plan. Consequently, the Council charged Mrs Z for care she did not receive. The Council have now agreed to refund the fees charged.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his mother’s respite stay. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to add anything to the response Mr X has already received. Also, the injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Summary: The complaint is about allegedly unpaid nursing home fees. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the main points are more properly for the courts.

Summary: Mrs C complains the Council did not properly investigate safeguarding concerns about Mr D. I have found no fault in the Council’s actions. It followed safeguarding procedures and reached a reasoned decision. While it is clear Mr D had a marked deterioration in his health, I am unable to say that the Council did not take appropriate action or there was service failure by the Care Provider. The Council is however at fault for failing to deal with Mrs C’s complaint properly and including irrelevant, uncorroborated information about Mrs C and Mr D in the safeguarding investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed her daughter’s move by considering housing options for her which were unsuitable and contrary to her support plan. Mrs X said this caused her and her daughter significant unnecessary distress. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: The Care Provider failed to properly record services it provided and involve family when the service user’s health declined. As a result, Mrs C lost an opportunity to provide extra help to her mother and potentially see her before she died. The Care Provider has agreed to apologise to Mrs C and make procedural changes. It will also pay Mrs C £500 to reflect the uncertainty caused by these failures, and her time and trouble in making her complaint.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the care provider misplacing the complainant’s dentures. This is because it is unlikely a further investigation by the Ombudsman would lead to a different outcome. The complainant can also make a claim through the courts if she believes the care provider is responsible for the loss.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s hourly direct payments rate is insufficient to purchase care and support from his chosen care provider. An investigation is unlikely to find fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the actions of the Council. This is because it is unlikely he would find any evidence of fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a safeguarding investigation and the Council’s actions relating to it. This is because the complaint is made late and there are no good reasons to consider it now. The additional matters raised by the complainant are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction or not for him to consider.