Summary: Mrs X says the Council wrongly decided her mother deliberately deprived herself of capital with the intention of decreasing her liability for care charges. There was fault by the Council because it did not properly apply the test on deprivation of capital. The Council agreed to exclude the property concerned from consideration as notional capital.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not provided him with information concerning his brother. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we will find evidence of fault sufficient to warrant an investigation and Mr X cannot make complaints or act on behalf of his brother as he does not have the necessary authority to do so.

Summary: Miss D complains through her sister Ms F about the way the Council assessed and met her care and support needs. The Ombudsman has found fault. The Council has agreed to apologise, review Miss D’s needs, and make a payment to Ms F.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his application for a disabled facilities grant. He said this caused him and his son, Z, unnecessary distress. There was no fault when the Council withdrew initial plans for adaptations and provided Mr X with alternative options. The Council was at fault in allowing the process to drift significantly. This caused Mr X unnecessary frustration and time and trouble. It also caused Z an injustice because he struggles at times to access the first floor. The Council should apologise and pay Mr X £300 to remedy the injustice identified.

Summary: The Ombudsman does not find fault with the way the Council assessed Mr B for residential care charges. There was also no fault in the way the Council conducted its investigation in respect of deprivation of assets.

Summary: Miss Y complained the care provider failed to provide adequate care and support to her grandmother, behaved in an intimidating way towards the family and then ended the contract without notice, leaving her grandmother without the support she needed. We have found fault with the care provider’s record keeping and for not providing all the care required by the care plan. It has already remedied the injustice caused.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about the Council’s response to a finding that it breached his confidentiality. This is because he has a court remedy for both the breach, and for his allegation of disability discrimination in the Council’s response.

Summary: The Council is at fault as the setting of Mrs Y’s personal budget was not transparent. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council decided how much to pay Ms X for managing Mrs Y’s direct payment account and how it decided Mrs Y’s disability related expenditure.

Summary: Mrs B complains about how a care provider commissioned by the Council dealt with matters relating to her son’s care and support. The Ombudsman finds no fault by the Council in these matters. There was however some fault in the investigation of Mrs B’s complaint, for which a remedy has been agreed.

Summary: The Ombudsmen found fault by the Council with regards to the care and support provided to a young woman with complex care needs. This fault meant the woman went without care for two years and caused both her and her mother significant distress. The Council has agreed to waive the outstanding care fees and pay an additional sum in recognition of the distress this caused for the woman and her mother.

Summary: the late Mrs X, and her daughter Mrs A, suffered injustice due to a failure to carry out a risk assessment for falls when Mrs X was admitted to Richmond Village Witney for a short respite stay. After Mrs X fell out of bed, staff did not complete a risk assessment, review the Care Plan or put in place measures to mitigate the risk of further falls. She had a further fall and suffered extensive bruising. Mrs A’s complaint was not considered in accordance with BUPA’s complaints procedure. BUPA accepts our findings and has agreed to provide a suitable remedy.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council gave inconsistent information to Mrs Y. It said she could not spend her budget as previously agreed so Mrs Y was left with increased risk and costs without the planned benefits. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault in the way it dealt with this. It has agreed to apologise, pay at least £1,000 for dog training, and provide training to its staff.

Summary: Mrs Y complained for her deceased brother, Mr X, the Council delayed in setting up direct payments for Mr X’s care and failed to give enough information about managed direct payment accounts. The Council was at fault causing injustice to Mr X and Mrs Y. The Council has agreed to review its procedures for direct payments and managed accounts and to provide training to relevant staff.

Summary: The Council accused Mrs X of using offensive words to an officer when it had no evidence to support this. The Council stopped Care Act assessments on Mrs X and her husband when it should not have done. The Council caused distress to Mrs X. The Council caused a two-month delay in its assessment of Mrs X and her husband. To put this right the Council has agreed to apologise and pay them a total of £450 for the distress and delay.

Summary: Miss X complains of failings by the Council affecting the sheltered accommodation where she lives. The Council failed to keep records in some of the areas complained of, which has caused injustice to Miss X, as it is not possible to check some disputed matters. The Council will apologise and issue a new care plan to meet Miss X’s assessed care needs.

Summary: We have upheld some of Ms X’s complaints about a council reducing her brother’s care. We found the council took too long to complete an assessment and was not open with the family when safeguarding issues were raised. This was fault which caused avoidable distress. To remedy the injustice, the council will apologise and make a symbolic payment as described in this statement.

Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her adult son, Mr Y, about changes the Council made to the contract arrangements and charges for his care. The Council has not changed the care provided for Mr Y but it reviewed the way the care was funded. The Council was not at fault in deciding to review the funding but its communication with Mrs X about this was poor. The Council also delayed providing Mrs X with key documents. The Council has already apologised to Mrs X for any distress caused by unclear communication and delay, written off some of Mr Y’s care charges and reviewed its procedures. This is an appropriate remedy.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to properly investigate the eviction of his wife from a residential home and the loss of her personal belongings. Investigation will not achieve the outcome Mr X wants. He has a legal remedy if he believes the Council or the home acted unlawfully or is liable for the lost property or harm to Mrs X.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to carry out an appropriate financial assessment of her contribution to her care charges and failed to properly consider her disability related expenditure. The Council was at fault. It delayed responding to Miss X, failed to properly consider her disability related expenditure and failed to clearly communicate with Miss X. It has agreed to apologise to Miss X, to waive the requirement to pay any outstanding charges and to pay her £300 to acknowledge the distress this caused. It has also agreed to review her care and support plan and her financial assessment and to agree the best way to communicate with Miss X in future.

Summary: Ms B complains about the care her mother, Mrs C, received at a Bupa care home. Ms B further complains about a lack of communication about her mother’s care and the way the care home responded to her complaints. The Ombudsman finds fault which caused Mrs C and Ms B an injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice.

Summary: The Care Provider acting on behalf of the Council was at fault for failing to call 999 and to keep a contemporaneous record of events. The Care Provider has revised its policy to ensure staff are clearer about when to call emergency services. It has agreed to remind staff of the importance of writing contemporaneously and apologise to Mrs C for the uncertainty these failures have caused her.

Summary: The care and treatment provided to Mrs X did not always meet expected standards. The actions of the care provider caused injustice to Mrs X, which it agrees to recognise by a payment for her benefit.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the quality of respite care given to Mr X by a nursing home. Investigation is not likely to lead to a different outcome. The Care Quality Commission has discussed with the home the practice issues.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the conduct of a Council social worker. Social Work England is the most appropriate body to consider such complaints. We cannot recommend disciplinary action against Council employees so we cannot achieve the outcome Miss X wants to achieve. The Information Commissioner’s Office is the most appropriate organisation for considering complaints about access to information.