Summary: The complainants complain about the Council contractor’s (Access Independent) decision to refuse their applications for Blue Badges or Freedom Passes.

Summary: The complainants complain about the Council contractor’s (Access Independent) decision to refuse their applications for Blue Badges or Freedom Passes.

Summary: The complainants complain about the Council contractor’s (Access Independent) decision to refuse their applications for Blue Badges or Freedom Passes.

Summary: The complainants complain about the Council contractor’s (Access Independent) decision to refuse their applications for Blue Badges or Freedom Passes.

Summary: The complainants complain about the Council contractor’s (Access Independent) decision to refuse their applications for Blue Badges or Freedom Passes.

Summary: The complainants complain about the Council contractor’s (Access Independent) decision to refuse their applications for Blue Badges or Freedom Passes.

Summary: The complainants complain about the Council contractor’s (Access Independent) decision to refuse their applications for Blue Badges or Freedom Passes.

Summary: The complainants complain about the Council contractor’s (Access Independent) decision to refuse their applications for Blue Badges or Freedom Passes.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council decision to pursue payment of charges for adult social care services from, or from the estate of Mr C’s mother, Mrs D. This is because the complaint is late without good reason, and because the matters at the heart of it amount to a dispute of legal interpretation which is properly for a court of law to decide.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide him with suitable care for four months. He also said the Council did not provide him with satisfactory care when his care visits resumed. He said this negatively affected his health. There was fault in the Council’s actions but this did not lead to an injustice for Mr X.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to involve her in a safeguarding enquiry concerning her relative Mr Y. The Council was at fault as it did not discuss the concerns with Ms X. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and review the way it conducted the investigation to identify any lessons to be learned. There was no fault in the actions the Council took as a result of the safeguarding investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms K’s complaint the Council and the care provider it commissioned have not provided suitable care for her mother, Mrs L, in her supported living accommodation. This is because there is little prospect of us achieving a worthwhile outcome for Mrs L or her family as Mrs L’s needs have been reassessed on leaving hospital and there are new decisions about her living arrangements in which the Ombudsman could not intervene.

Summary: The Ombudsman found fault with the way the Council decided not to complete a fresh financial assessment when the administrator of a woman’s estate provided information demonstrating her circumstances had changed. This left the woman’s estate at a potential financial disadvantage. The Council agreed to complete a further financial assessment to recalculate the complainant’s contributions to her care charges and reimburse her estate if appropriate.

Summary: The Council acknowledges some fault in its communication with Mr X’s family and the record of Mr X’s capacity assessment. The Council will now offer a payment in acknowledgement of the distress caused to Mr X’s family.

Summary: Mr X complained about the actions of the Council when the care home his mother lived in raised a safeguarding alert. Mr X said this caused him distress and his mother’s health to deteriorate, eventually leading to her death. The Council carried out a satisfactory investigation which identified fault in its own actions and those of the care home. It made recommendations to prevent a recurrence of the issues complained about.

Summary: Mr X complained for his father, Mr Y, about the standard of care at the Grange Nursing Home (the Grange) and the Council’s decision to end one to one support. The Ombudsman did not find fault in the Council’s decision to stop one to one support or in the care provided by the Grange. There was some fault in the Council’s record keeping.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about money owed to his father’s estate. This is because the care provider has agreed to refund the money and Mr X no longer wishes to pursue the complaint.

Summary: Miss B complains on behalf of Mrs C that the Council did not properly deal with care provision for her mother. The Council was at fault because it didn’t follow timescales set out in its complaints procedure. Miss B suffered distress because she did not know whether her complaint was being dealt with properly. The Council has apologised for the delay and this is a suitable remedy.

Summary: Ms F complains about the Council’s actions in relation to a safeguarding investigation against her. The Ombudsman has found fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms F.

Summary: Mr B complained the Council wrongly told his MP that he prevented a social worker from visiting his family. Mr B said being accused of this caused him distress. The Council accepted it gave Mr B’s MP inaccurate information and apologised during its complaint procedure. The Ombudsman found fault with the Council causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy this injustice.

Summary: A legal representative complains the Council wrongly calculated the contribution her client Mrs C was required to make towards the cost of care, having decided that Mrs C had deprived herself of capital. The Ombudsman finds no administrative fault in the Council’s decision-making. Further, the Council’s decision on deprivation did not lead to Mrs B paying more for her care in the relevant period.

Summary: Mrs R complained about the Council’s handling of her mother’s care costs and its delays in responding to her complaint. The Council was late sending a bill of increased care costs, which caused the family worry and stress. It has apologised and reduced the invoice to reflect the injustice caused by its delay. It will review its processes to avoid a recurrence.

Summary: The Council’s response to Ms X’s complaint was inadequate but there is no evidence that caused material injustice. There is insufficient evidence that the Council’s actions in seeking to recover the debt incurred by Ms X’s mother in law were fault.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to arrange suitable accommodation for him during a Christmas holiday in 2017. The Ombudsman upheld Mr X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and review the way in which it monitors the progress of complaints investigations.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council stopped his care package leaving him without care and support. There was no fault in the way the Council assessed Mr X’s care needs and decided he did not meet the criteria for formal care and support.

Summary: There is no evidence the actions of the care provider caused injustice to Mrs X or her family.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council handled the costs of care provided to his father. He says an unexpected bill caused his father worry and stress. The Council was at fault for a delay in carrying out a financial assessment. It has already apologised and should reduce the debt to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to explain to her that she would be charged for a short-term residential care home stay while her property was being deep cleaned. The Council was at fault as there is no evidence the Council explained the potential cost of the care or provided her with information about the cost before she returned home. The Council has agreed to waive the charges, to remind staff of the need to advise service users of the potential costs before they agree to receive care and support and to ensure this is noted in the case records.

Summary: There is no fault by the Council. It determined a blue badge application in order of expiry date and processed the badge quickly once it got the further information it needed. There is no evidence the Council said it would definitely signpost the complainants for benefits advice. The files show the Council considered the option of a referral for benefits advice but no commitment was made by the social worker.