Summary: Mrs X complained the Care Provider commissioned by the Council, Sesnha Care, did not properly care for her mother, Mrs Y and failed to address the complaint she raised about this. She said this caused her and her family distress and inconvenience. There was fault in the Care Provider’s actions when it failed to lock Mrs Y’s door, missed several care visits, and did not administer her medication correctly. The Council was at fault when it did not review Mrs Y’s care package in line with statutory guidance. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs X £150 to recognise the distress and time and trouble she was put to by these faults.

Summary: Mrs B complained about a Council-funded care home’s poor care and communication around the end of her late mother’s life, as well as poor complaint handling. The Ombudsman does not uphold the complaint about end of life care and communication with Mrs B before her mother died. The Ombudsman has found faults in the care home’s procedure, record keeping and communication with Mrs B after her mother died. The Council accepts our recommendations, so we have completed our investigation.

Summary: We uphold a complaint about poor record keeping. We do not uphold a complaint about a failure to do appropriate checks on Mr Y. The failure to keep contemporaneous records meant care was not in line with Regulation 17 of the 2014 Regulations. The Care Provider should apologise for the avoidable distress to Mr Y’s family.

Summary: Ms Y complains about the Council’s decision on Ms X’s care charge contributions and its handling of the dispute. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the Council’s decision on Ms X’s care charges but finds fault in its handling of the dispute. The Ombudsman recommends the Council provides an apology, pays £100 for distress and uncertainty and acts to prevent recurrence.

Summary: Mrs B and Mrs C complained about the Council’s failure to inform them about an outstanding debt for care home fees or to chase them about the debt. The Ombudsman has not found fault in the Council’s communications except for a delay between February 2017 and September 2018. The Ombudsman has not investigated whether the Council can pursue the debt through the court as this is outside of its jurisdiction and can only be decided by the court.

Summary: Mr X complains about the quality of care provided to his mother, Mrs Y, and the way the Council dealt with his complaint. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault and this caused Mrs Y to be at an increased risk of harm and frustration, time and trouble to Mr X. The Council has agreed to apologise and ensure all residents at Scotia Heights have adequate records in place. It will also improve its complaints handling.

Summary: Ms Y complains the Council has not exercised its discretion to disregard the value of her foster mother’s home. Ms Y says she gave up her home to care for her foster mother and could be left homeless if the house is sold to cover care home fees. The Ombudsman does not find fault in how the Council considered whether to exercise its discretion.

Summary: Mrs C complains that the Council did not provide proper advice about the 12-week property disregard in relation to charging for residential care. As a result, her mother was unnecessarily charged for the first six weeks’ stay in her care home. The Ombudsman considers that the Council did not give appropriate advice. The Council has agreed to backdate the 12-week disregard to the date of Mrs C’s first call. It has also agreed to review its procedures to ensure that it complies with its duty to provide appropriate and timely information and ensure that officers are aware of that duty.

Summary: The Council is at fault as it delayed in completing a Care Act assessment and care and support planning for Mr X. As a result, Mr X had to live in a care home for six months longer than necessary which caused significant distress to Mr and Mrs X. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by making a payment of £1000 to Mr and Mrs X to acknowledge the distress caused to them.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing their adult son Mr S’s needs assessment and care and support plan. The Council was at fault for the delay. It was also at fault for the restrictions it placed on the way they could use the respite budget. There was no fault in the way it set the level of budget or in the support provided to Mr and Mrs X to manage the direct payments. It has agreed to apologise to Mr and Mrs X and pay them £250 to acknowledge the frustration caused

Summary: Mr X complained the care provider commissioned by the Council, failed to consider his mother, Mrs Y’s needs when it decided it could no longer deliver her care package and she would have to move to a nursing home. He also complained the Care Provider replaced his mother’s key worker because she disagreed with the Care Provider’s decision. He said this matter has caused his mother distress and emotional upset. There was no fault in the Care Provider’s actions.

Summary: Mrs D complained about the quality of care provided to her mother Mrs X. The care provider failed to provide adequate care to Mrs X. There were a lack of adequate assessments and care plans and a lack of referrals for specialist input. This impacted on Mrs X’s well-being and caused Mrs D distress. The care provider should make a payment to Mrs X and to Mrs D to acknowledge the injustice caused.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the care provider receiving two monthly payments for her mother’s care following her death and about complaint handling issues. This is because the matter has not caused a significant, unremedied, personal injustice serious enough to merit an investigation.

Summary: Ms Y complains the Council has not completed a satisfactory review of the suitability of a care home to meet her father’s care needs. She says this means she is left with uncertainty about whether the family should be required to pay a top-up fee for his current care home. The Ombudsman has not found fault in the way the Council carried out the review.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s treatment of her father between 2017 and 2018. We will not investigate this late complaint. This is because there is not a good reason Mrs X did not complain to us sooner.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s missing items. This is because it is unlikely the Ombudsman could add to the care provider’s response. The complainant can also claim through the courts if they believe the care provider is responsible for the loss.

Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council has failed to provide respite for her and her adult son, who has complex needs. She says this has caused stress and had an emotional and physical impact on her and her family. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault.

Summary: Mr and Mrs B complained that the Council failed to explain in a timely and complete manner, how the charges for care for Mrs B’s mother, Mrs C arose. On the evidence available we find that the Council delayed excessively in amending the charges and sending out correct invoices. It exacerbated the confusion and frustration caused to Mr and Mrs B by its failure to attend a prearranged meeting or provide a full coherent explanation to them. The Council has agreed to waive the outstanding charge and pay Mr and Mrs B £150 for their time and trouble.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Care Provider handled a safeguarding incident involving her mother, Mrs M, at one of its care homes, Sharston House. Mrs X said this caused Mrs M and the family emotional and financial distress. There was no fault in the Care Provider’s actions.

Summary: Mrs X complained the care provider commissioned by the Council, Westlands Care home, failed to prevent her mother, Mrs Y, from falling and this led to her death. Mrs X said this caused her and her family stress and emotional upset. There was no fault in how the Care Provider responded to Mrs Y’s fall which led to her hospital admission. There was some fault in the Care Provider’s actions relating to two earlier falls, one of which was preventable. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and ensure the Care Provider reminds its staff to fully complete accident reports and notify the GP and relatives when such incidents occur.

Summary: The Ombudsman has not found fault with the way the Council assessed Ms C’s finances and its application of the minimum income guarantee to determine her contribution to a care package. There was a delay in the Council’s response to the complaint and a small discrepancy in the calculation of the first week’s contribution. The Council has apologised for the delay and has amended the account to provide a credit for the discrepancy and these are appropriate remedies.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Care Provider dealt with the late Mr Y when he was seriously unwell and the way it handled his complaint about this. The Ombudsman finds the Care Provider caused injustice when it failed to keep accurate records and check on Mr Y appropriately. Also, in the way it handled Mr X’s complaint. The Care Provider has accepted this and will ensure staff receive further training in record keeping. It has agreed to apologise and refund the fees for Mr Y’s last day.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her application for disabled adaptations. In particular, she says the Council agreed to a downstairs extension then changed its mind. The Council was at fault for telling Mrs X the extension was approved before completing its assessment. It has already apologised for this. There was no fault in the way it reached a later decision to approve a through floor lift and ground floor toilet.

Summary: The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council’s refusal to fund a placement at a care home while there was a dispute about a financial assessment. Mrs A’s care needs have been and continue to be met.

Summary: Mrs X complains on behalf of Miss Y that the Council has not properly considered disability related costs relating to Miss Y’s support needs. The Council was at fault because it has not been clear about how it has calculated disability related costs and did not consider Miss Y’s need for support properly. Miss Y has spent money for her carer to support her. The Council has agreed to explain disability related costs decisions in more detail. The Council should also review Miss Y’s needs.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council wrongly refused her application for a Blue Badge. She said her ability to access shops was restricted as a result. The Council’s assessment of Mrs X’s mobility was not in line with Government guidance. This is fault, which caused injustice to Mrs X. The Council agreed to re-assess Mrs X. I also recommended the Council amend its assessment scorecard.

Summary: Ms X complains her weight was wrongly recorded by the Council during an assessment. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because neither the claimed fault nor the injustice caused to Ms X are sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Miss X complained about the actions of London Borough of Tower Hamlets (the Council’s) adult social care and substance misuse services and East London NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust’s) mental health and autism diagnosis services. The Ombudsmen have upheld some of Miss X’s complaints against both the Council and the Trust. The Council and the Trust have accepted our recommendations for apologies, financial remedies and service improvements. We have therefore completed our investigation.

Summary: Mrs C complained about the Council’s decision that her parents did not have to go into residential care, because the Council believed they could still be supported at home. Mrs C says this caused her a lot of distress. The Ombudsman did not find fault with regards to the process through which the Council reached its decision.

Summary: The Council failed to respond properly to Mrs X’s complaints about the way a social worker conducted a safeguarding investigation. It failed to follow its safeguarding procedure or the Mental Capacity Act. It has apologised and partially upheld her complaint but agrees to recognise the considerable distress caused by a consolatory payment. It will also review its processes for signing off safeguarding investigations.

Summary: The Ombudsmen found no fault with the care and support provided to a young woman with complex needs by a Council, Mental Health Trust and Clinical Commissioning Group.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to fund her stepmother’s, Mrs C’s, care home fees. This is because it is unlikely he would find enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsmen did not take further action with Mr H’s complaint about the mental health treatment provided to his daughter, Miss G, by a Council, CCG and a Trust. Although there was some fault by the Trust, we have not found this led to a shortfall in Miss G’s treatment.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Care Provider treated him after a carer made false allegations about him. We will not investigate this complaint as it is unlikely we would find fault in the Care Provider’s actions.