Summary: The complaint is about Mrs F’s care by an intermediate care team after she was discharged from hospital. There is no fault because changes to her care arrangements were made with her consent and after reviews of her care and support plan. There was a failure to chase up a referral to advocacy services which is fault, but there is no evidence of significant injustice because Mrs F had support from her family.

Summary: Ms B complained the Council delayed recovering an overpaid direct payment, failed to properly explain the amount outstanding and wrongly said she had agreed a repayment plan. The Council was not at fault for the way it told Ms B about the amount outstanding or for the payment plan amount. However, the Council delayed following up with Ms B when payment was not received. The delay caused Ms B distress. An apology is satisfactory remedy, taking into account the length of time Ms B has had without having to pay the amount owed back to the Council.

Summary: Mr Q complained the Council’s Welfare Rights Service did not attend a Tribunal hearing with him. The Ombudsman finds the Council was not at fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the actions of her late aunt’s, Mrs C’s, care provider. This is because the Ombudsman cannot provide a remedy for the injustice caused to Mrs C from the actions of her care provider as she has since died. It is unlikely any further investigation would make a different finding than that given by Mrs C’s care provider or of the kind Ms B wants.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that a social worker or doctor was linked to a road traffic accident the complainant had in 1999. This is because it is a late complaint.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to find a suitable placement for his brother Mr Y, in the Council’s area. The Council was at fault. There were delays in it progressing finding suitable accommodation for Mr Y. The Council has agreed to prioritise finding Mr Y suitable accommodation as soon as possible. It has also agreed to pay Mr Y £1000 to acknowledge the distress caused by the delays and Mr X £500 to acknowledge the extra expense, distress and inconvenience caused to him.

Summary: There was no fault in the standards of care provided to the complainant, in a home care package commissioned by the Council. For this reason, the Ombudsman has completed his investigation.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision not to initially award him a disabled facilities grant for his kitchen before subsequently approving him on reassessment. Mr X says this caused a delay in his grant application being approved. From the evidence seen, the Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council’s initial decision not to award Mr X a disabled facilities grant. However there was a delay in reassessing Mr X following the receipt of further medical evidence. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £300 to acknowledge the avoidable distress caused by the delay in reassessment.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain on the late Mr Y’s behalf that the Care Provider charged more than was due. It also applied for an urgent deprivation of liberties authorisation and referred Mr and Mrs X to the Office of the Public Guardian and the safeguarding team because they complained. They say the Care Provider did not respond to their complaint and this caused them much stress, time and trouble. The Ombudsman finds the Care Provider did not cause injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council unreasonably increased his daughter, Ms Y’s personal contribution towards her care costs. He also complained the Council did not respond appropriately to his complaint. He said this caused him and Ms Y distress and financial loss. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: The Ombudsman has not investigated some of Mr B’s complaints as they relate to the NHS or do not relate to the care Mrs B received. The Home has already upheld Mr B’s complaint that there was sometimes a lack of supervision in the communal hall and has addressed the problem. Mr B also complained about an unfair upfront deposit and the Home has agreed to repay this. The Ombudsman has not found fault in the other complaints relating to the care Mrs B received and the frequency of the referrals the Home made to the NHS assessor.

Summary: Mr J complains about the Council's actions in relation to his detention under the Mental Health Act 1983. The Ombudsman has found no fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint the Council will not enter into a Deferred Payment Agreement (DPA) for Mrs L’s care home fees because it would be reasonable for the complainants to ask the courts to decide the central matter in dispute.

Summary: Mr X complained about the ending of his contract with a care provider and the Council’s delay putting in alternative support. I have not found any fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained about his father’s care in a care home. There was fault in the Care Provider’s communication and record-keeping. It provided contradictory and confusing information to the family and did not arrange a health appointment and prescription. There were delays in its complaint handling. The Care Provider’s faults did not cause injustice to Mr X’s father, but they did cause time and trouble for Mr X and the family experienced some worry.

Summary: Mr X and Mr Y complain the care provider cancelled their care visits without notice leaving them without access to care and support. The care provider was not at fault for ending its service to Mr X and Mr Y as they were refusing to accept support.

Summary: Ms X complained about the care and support provided to her adult son by Choice Support (the care provider), at the supported living accommodation jointly funded by the Council and a Clinical Commissioning Group. The care provider and Council were at fault. Care plans were insufficient, and Mr Y did not receive the community support he was assessed as needing. There were faults in the care provided to Mr Y and in the Council’s safeguarding process. The Council and care provider have agreed to apologise to Ms X and Mr Y and make a payment to acknowledge the distress and frustration caused by the faults. They have also agreed to review their procedures to prevent such faults recurring in future.

Summary: Ms X complained about the care and support provided to her adult son by Choice Support (the care provider), at the supported living accommodation jointly funded by the Council and a Clinical Commissioning Group. The care provider and Council were at fault. Care plans were insufficient, and Mr Y did not receive the community support he was assessed as needing. There were faults in the care provided to Mr Y and in the Council’s safeguarding process. The Council and care provider have agreed to apologise to Ms X and Mr Y and make a payment to acknowledge the distress and frustration caused by the faults. They have also agreed to review their procedures to prevent such faults recurring in future.