Summary: We do not uphold Ms X’s complaints about Ms Y’s care in Care Home A, about the way the Council shared information with Ms X or about its consultation with Ms X when Ms Y needed to move to a different care home.

Summary: Mrs B complains the Council wrongly removed her care package. She says she had a fall due to the lack of support. Mrs B says the Council then delayed in arranging a new package of care and has not considered direct payments. At this stage, the Ombudsman finds fault in the way the Council completed a review in July 2018 and for not considering a carers assessment. We also find fault in the Council stopping Mrs B’s care, delays in completing a new needs assessment and for not making attempts to arrange a new financial assessment in 2019.

Summary: We uphold some of Ms C’s complaints. There was fault by a care home acting for a council because its staff did not treat Ms C with dignity or respect and did not provide care around medication in line with her care plans. The Council should apologise and pay Ms C £150 to reflect her distress. The Council conducted a safeguarding enquiry, in line with section 42 of the Care Act 2014 and it reviewed and revised Ms C’s care and support plan in line with section 27 of the Care Act 2014 and so there was no fault.

Summary: Ms X complains that the care home should have deducted funded nursing care payments from its fees. She complains that the care home did not explain funded nursing care, and the contract is not transparent about it. Ms X says this has left her father out of pocket, and it has caused upset and worry about his ability to pay for his care. The Ombudsman does not find fault.

Summary: There was fault by the Council as it did not review and revise Mr K’s care and support plan in line with Section 27 of the Care Act 2014. This did not cause Mr K injustice because had the Council revised the plan, on a balance of probability, he would still have been offered residential care. There was no absolute duty on the Council to arrange home care for Mr K, even though this was his preference.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the fees his mother, Mrs Y, was charged by the Care Provider. This is because there is insufficient injustice to warrant further investigation.

Summary: The Council was at fault because it did not meet Mr C’s eligible needs. The Council agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: The Council failed to provide an appropriate placement to meet Mrs C’s adult social care needs. The Council failed to offer an available suitable placement in Mr B’s area once it decided it was in Mrs C’s best interests to move there. The Council failed to deal with Mr B’s complaint in line with its complaint procedure. The Council should apologise, pay Mr B £500 and remind staff of correct procedures.

Summary: the complainant says the Care Provider failed to properly consider the risk of a resident falling from her bed and to respond appropriately to the complaint and refund fees paid during her stay at the Care Provider’s Camplehaye Residential Care Home, Lamerton Way, Tavistock, Devon. The Care Provider says its contract with residents says it does not refund care fees, but it offered a remedy. The Ombudsman finds the Care Provider caused an injustice.

Summary: There was no significant delay by the Council when carrying out an assessment for a care and support plan. Ms B complains that she has suffered increased anxiety because of the way the Council dealt with her and has not received any support from the Council. The Council provided reasonable adjustments when she explained about her anxiety but without her agreement could not put in the place the support it identified.

Summary: The complaint is about several issues around a review of a care and support plan, including a reduction in the package of care. It also includes complaints about respite, contingency planning and deprivation of liberty concerns. The Ombudsman finds no administrative fault. And we cannot question the merits of the Council’s decisions.

Summary: The care provider considered the use of bedrails but did not take other appropriate action to manage the falls risks for Mrs X despite her vulnerability. The care provider agrees to apologise to her family, take action to review its procedures in respect of falls management, and offer the sum of £500 in recognition of the distress caused to her family.

Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of his late mother about the care she received in a care home resulting in her admission to hospital. He also complains about the Care Provider’s decision to keep her on her bed. From the evidence seen, the Ombudsman does not find the actions of the Care Provider caused an injustice.

Summary: Mr Y complained the Council failed to meet his brother Mr X’s needs due to the inadequacy of his current supported living accommodation and it failed to deal with the disruptive behaviour of another tenant. Any concerns Mr Y has about the current accommodation are matters for the housing association and are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The Council is not at fault for the way it is meeting Mr X’s needs. It has taken action to address the concerns about the other tenant’s behaviour and is not at fault. It is at fault for failing to review Mr X’s care plan. It has agreed to do so now.

Summary: The Ombudsmen find a CCG did not do enough to pursue alternative ways of arranging Continuing Healthcare outside of directly commissioning it. As a result Ms A had to provide a significant amount of care for her mother which, in turn, caused avoidable stress and discomfort. The Ombudsmen also find a Council did not handle the removal of a source of support to Ms A as sensitively as it should. The Ombudsmen has recommended apologies and a financial payment to address these injustices.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of the charges for his wife’s care and the decision to backdate charges for a second evening carer between 10 December 2018 and 7 July 2019. There is nothing in the Council’s records to justify the backdated charge, as Mrs X has been paying for a second evening carer all along. The Council has agreed to withdraw the backdated charges, apologise, pay financial redress and take action to prevent a repetition of the problems experienced by Mr & Mrs X.

Summary: Mr C complains about his domiciliary care and that he was overcharged. The Ombudsman has ended his involvement as Mr C has started court action.

Summary: The Council delayed in responding to Mrs B’s complaint and has apologised and offered a payment in recognition of her time and trouble. However, the Council was not at fault in issuing invoices to Mrs B for outstanding care home fees for the late Mrs K, as Mrs B was the executor of Mrs K’s estate.

Summary: Mrs X says the Council has failed to repair the front door to her property. The Council was not at fault.

Summary: The Council frequently failed to complete adult social care calls on time or failed to turn up at all. On many occasions the Council still met Mrs H’s needs, but on other occasions it did not. Mrs H was paying in full for the poor service. The Council will waive 50% of the care fees and pay £100 each to Mrs H and her daughter in recognition of their distress, time and trouble.

Summary: Ms F is a solicitor acting on behalf of Ms X’s court appointed deputy for property and financial affairs. Ms F complained the Council had not increased Ms X’s personal expenses allowance to account for deputy fees and some other costs. The reasons the Council gave for not allowing Ms X’s deputy fees as a personal expense were flawed. The Council agreed to review and re-consider its decision. There was no fault in the Council’s decision not to include the other costs in the financial assessment.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council wrongly rejected her daughter’s application for a Blue Badge. She said this caused her distress and inconvenience. The Council’s letter to Mrs X was misleading and failed to provide reasons why it rejected her application. However, it has demonstrated it considered Mrs X’ application in line with current guidance; therefore, she did not experience a significant injustice. The Council has revised its rejection letters and also carried out an audit of other rejected applicants which showed they did not experience an injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s actions regarding his daughter’s, Ms C’s direct payments. This is because the Council has apologised for the delay in invoicing Ms C for her care, agreed to reduce Ms C’s care charges by £500 and offered to implement a repayment plan to recover the remaining debt. The Ombudsman is satisfied this remedies the injustice caused to Ms C by the fault.

Summary: Mr B complains on behalf of his mother, Mrs C, that the Council has wrongly charged for her care. The Council was at fault because its charges for care were not clear and there was a delay in completing a care assessment. Mr B and C were uncertain about the type of care provided and the charges that would be made for it. The Council has agreed to reduce its charges and it should also charge for a shorter period.

Summary: Mrs X complains Chaseview Nursing Home failed to look after her father properly when the Council placed him there for two weeks of respite care. There was confusion over when her father would arrive and Chaseview failed to produce a person centred care plan for him. This resulted in it failing to meet all his needs. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay financial redress.

Summary: There was fault by the Council which took too long to set up a direct payment for Ms X so she could choose her own care provider. This caused avoidable frustration and meant she had to receive care from two agencies despite raising repeated concerns about the quality of those agencies. To remedy the injustice, the Council will apologise and refund fees.

Summary: The Council accepts it failed to provide an adequate level of service to Mrs X and her daughters when assessing Mrs X’s care needs. The Council has already apologised for this. To put matters right the Council will also repay the care home fee Mrs X’s daughter paid in recognition of the distress and anxiety it caused.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about care home charges for the complainant’s late husband. This is because it is a late complaint and because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms X complains on behalf of her deceased sister, Ms K, that the Council failed in its duty of care towards Ms K. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because we do not accept Ms X to be a suitable representative for Ms K in this matter.

Summary: The care provider took the right action to investigate the allegations about two separate carers. It liaised with the local safeguarding teams. It refunded money in goodwill where there was little evidence of inappropriate use. There is no worthwhile outcome to be achieved by further investigation.

Summary: the Council considered Ms X’s disability-related expenditure appropriately, applied the Minimum Income Guarantee and sought to obtain accurate figures from her. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council has acted.

Summary: The Council delayed in completing a financial assessment in respect of Mr C’s contribution towards the cost of his care and in issuing an invoice for the backdated charges. This was fault. The Council has offered to waive 50% of Mr C’s contribution towards the backdated charges. The Ombudsman considers this to be a satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused by the Council’s fault.

Summary: Mrs B complains about the Council’s role as a court appointed deputy for her late brother, Mr C. 2. She says that as a result of the Council’s failings she was denied the right to protect her brother, his interests and his assets. There was fault in the Council failing to identify Mrs B before applying for deputyship and the Council will apologise for that. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s administration of Mr C’s affairs.

Summary: The care provider (commissioned by the Council to provide care for Mr X) acknowledges there was a medication error prior to Mr X’s hospital admission but Mr X’s GP says this was unrelated to the hospital admission. The care provider did not initially respond properly to Mrs X but subsequently provided a full response.

Summary: The Care Provider is at fault for failing to make a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards referral in good time and losing clothing. The Care Provider also failed to monitor oral hygiene, complete adequate risk assessments, or record properly. As a result of these faults there is uncertainty about whether Mrs D was properly cared for, and whether it was appropriate for the Care Provider to ask her to look at alternative care homes. The Care Provider has agreed to make service improvements, procedural changes, and payments to Mrs D and Mr C to remedy the complaint.

Summary: Mr B complains the Council delayed in resolving issues over the suitability of his accommodation and in moving him to a different placement. He also complains the placement the Council moved him to was not suitable. Mr B says this negatively impacted his mental wellbeing. The Ombudsman finds fault in how the Council responded to concerns about Mr B’s accommodation. We also find fault in how the Council managed Mr B’s move to alternative accommodation.

Summary: Mr B complains the Council’s transition team did not support him to transition from children’s to adults’ services. Mr B says his request to delay a placement move was not properly considered. The Ombudsman has found fault with the Council for failing to reassess Mr B’s needs following significant life events and consider his needs when deciding not to delay his placement move. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B, make a payment to him to recognise the avoidable distress caused by its faults and to provide training for its staff.

Summary: We uphold Ms A’s complaints about a care provider not providing her with reading and social support. Ms A suffered avoidable distress and inconvenience and she did not receive the services agreed on her care plan. To remedy the injustice, the Care Provider will reduce the bill by a further £1500 and apologise for the failings identified within one month. We do not uphold Ms A’s complaint about billing her for a second carer.