Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault with the social care and housing support provided to a woman with complex care needs by two local authorities.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council has not acted on her safeguarding concerns she raised about her brother-in-law. There is no fault in the way the Council investigated Miss X’s safeguarding concerns.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the care her late father, Mr C, received from his care provider. This is because Ms B’s complaint is late and there is no good reason for the Ombudsman to disapply the law. Mr C is now deceased, and the Ombudsman could not provide a remedy to him for any injustice caused by fault an investigation might uncover.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaints about the care provided to her late parents, Mr and Mrs C. This is because sadly Mr and Mrs C are now deceased so the Ombudsman could not provide a remedy to them for any injustice an investigation might uncover.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about care provided to her deceased friend and neighbour Mrs C between March and April. This is because it is unlikely that further investigation would be able to provide Mrs B with a different response to that she has been given or one that she wants.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his mother’s missing personal belongings. This is because the care provider has already offered a suitable remedy.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Care Provider missed a care call for her father in January 2020 and carers do not reliably log in when they visit. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the injustice caused is not significant enough to warrant our involvement, and it is unlikely we could add to the Care Provider’s investigation and the action it has already taken.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the care his brother Mr C received from his care provider during the past five years. This is because it is unlikely further investigation could add to the Council’s response. There is no good reason for his to disapply the law in this case.

Summary: Ms X complains about the way she was treated by a Council social worker while dealing with her sister’s care. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation in unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council failed to fully communicate with the family about why his mother was placed in respite care, how long she would stay there and the possible costs of the placement. He says the Council delayed in arranging the measures required to make her home safe for her return. As a result, she remained in the respite placement longer than expected causing her and the family stress and incurring additional fees. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation on the basis that the Council has offered to make a payment to Mrs C.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council sharing information about the complainant. This is because the Ombudsman cannot question decisions made by the Council without evidence of fault and is unlikely to find fault with how it reached its decision. Parts of the complaint are also better placed to be considered by another body.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s mismanagement of an Adult Social Care case which concerns his deceased friend. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the concerns Mr X has raised on behalf of his deceased friend as he does not have authority to act on her behalf. The complaints he has made about his own treatment by the Council fall outside our jurisdiction and will not be investigated.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that her new social worker is in a team led by a manager she does not feel able to work with. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council which warrants an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of Mr Y, that the Council did not move Mr Y to suitable accommodation after it said his needs would be better met elsewhere. Over four years later, and 18 months after he complained, Mr Y has not moved. He says he is unhappy and reliant on staff for everything, including leaving the property. This caused him significant stress and anxiety and he lost independent living skills. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault in the way it dealt with Mr Y’s accommodation and his complaint about this. It delayed and failed to take decisive action to resolve difficulties it faced in commissioning a suitable service. It has agreed to apologise, pay Mr Y £5,000 and reimburse him £1,200 for decorating a property he never returned to. It has also agreed to arrange suitable accommodation urgently and identify and remedy similar cases. It will take action to prevent similar problems in future.

Summary: Ms D complained about information she received about her mother’s discharge from hospital to residential care and associated charges. The Ombudsmen have upheld Ms D’s complaints about Manchester City Council. We have not upheld her complaints about Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust and Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust. The Council has accepted our recommendations, so we have completed our investigation.

Summary: Mr C complains for his daughter Ms B that the Council arbitrarily reduced the one to one support in her care package. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the way the Council made its decision to reduce the amount of one to one support. There were some faults in the Council’s administrative handling of the care assessments prior to this, but those faults did not cause injustice to Ms B.

Summary: The Ombudsman found failures on Mrs B and Ms C’s complaint against their late mother’s care provider which caused injustice. It failed to deal with their complaints according to its complaints procedure, failed to acknowledge and reply to correspondence, and failed to send copies of requested care records. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: The complainant says the Council failed to properly consider his residence in his late mother’s home when it agreed to a deferred payment and placed a charge on the property. The Council later reviewed the decision and removed the charge but only after the complainant had incurred legal costs. The Council says it acted on the information presented by the property owner’s family. The Ombudsman finds the Council acted with fault causing injustice.

Summary: Ms B complains that the Council has failed to respond to her request for a disabled parking bay in a timely manner and, as a result she is at risk of harm when she cannot park outside her home. She also says the Council has allocated parking spaces to all the other residents in her road and she is the only one without this provision. The Ombudsman finds there was an excessive delay in the Council dealing with Ms B’s request. To remedy the injustice caused the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms B and pay her £200.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council’s social worker refused to help him gain access to see his father. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council which correctly signposted him to the Office of the Court Protection.

Summary: Mr X says there was fault in the way the Council managed his daughter’s direct payments account. The Ombudsman finds there was no fault in the Council’s decision to recoup an overpayment. However, the Council has delayed in completing an annual Care Act review for Mr X’s daughter. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Mr B, complains on behalf of his grandmother, the late Mrs C, about the care provided to her at one of the care provider’s homes. The Ombudsman finds some fault in record keeping. That fault led to uncertainty for Mrs C’s family about the care she had received. The care provider has agreed to provide a formal apology to the family and implement service improvements.

Summary: The Council missed opportunities to explain to Ms B why it had not completed the review of her adult social care package, and why it needed to do a reassessment. The Council failed to complete follow up actions it promised. Because of this it has not completed the reassessment and has failed to support Ms B with a housing application as promised. The Council’s actions have caused confusion, and left Ms B feeling alone and vulnerable. The Council will apologise, complete the reassessment and any support with the housing application as soon as possible.

Summary: On behalf of her deceased mother, Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to treat her mother’s settlement of her property into a trust as a deprivation of assets. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault.

Summary: Miss B complained about the time taken by the Council to complete her care needs assessment and increase the support she needed. We find some fault by the Council during the process which caused delay, but we do not consider the Council was responsible for all the delay. The Council has agreed to pay Miss B £500 for the distress caused and to pay £200 for the interest she paid for buying specialist equipment on her credit card.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to tell her son he was required to pay towards the cost of his care plan. Mrs X says the Council wrongly charged her son for care he has not received and sent invoices to an incorrect address. Mrs X says the Council’s actions caused stress to herself and her son. The Ombudsman finds some fault by the Council in this matter. The Council has agreed to provide an apology and an explanation for the costs, and to waive the outstanding invoices.

Summary: Miss X complains that the Council failed to properly deal with her application to renew her freedom pass. The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation as further investigation will not achieve any more for Miss X. This is because the Council has agreed to reimburse the costs of Miss X’s travel which she incurred while her pass was deactivated.

Summary: The Council is at fault as it poorly communicated with Miss Y, did not involve her in decisions about her care, wrongly stopped her direct payments and delayed in carrying out a care act assessment. As a result, Miss Y was denied care and support for approximately 19 months. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by making a payment of £500 to Miss Y and reimbursing the costs of support she paid for during this period.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint the care and support provider did not provide services she arranged for her son, Mr C, through his residential college. This is because we cannot investigate the involvement of the college, and there is not enough evidence the care provider is at fault or has caused Ms B or Mr C significant injustice so the complaint does not warrant investigating.

Summary: Ms Y complained the Council failed to include her in a safeguarding investigation and failed to provide records on request. The Council was at fault for not responding to Ms Y’s request for safeguarding information, however, it provided this following a subject access request so the injustice to Ms Y was not significant. The Council was not at fault for the way it carried out the safeguarding investigation and in its attempts to involve Ms Y in the investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman has discontinued its investigation into the care provided by an agency funded by the Council. As the agency no longer exists and is unable to comment or provide information on the complaint, the Ombudsman is unable to carry out a proper investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsmen find Sagecare Limited did not act with fault when it ended Miss G’s support after she harassed staff. However, Cheshire East Council missed the opportunity to carry out a formal section 117 review with a local NHS Trust and/or South Cheshire Clinical Commissioning Group, before it decided against reinstating that support. That fault caused Miss G and her mother, Mrs M, uncertainty which the Council should remedy.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to properly assess the amount her father could afford to pay towards his care. Mrs X has successfully appealed the decision of the NHS not to award her father continuing health care. This means the NHS will pay for his health and social care costs from June 2017. The Council will also write off any outstanding fees from before June 2017. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely we could achieve anything more.

Summary: On behalf of Ms A, Mr X complains about the Council’s response to a complaint made about the behaviour of a social worker. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr Y complains on behalf of his tenant, Mr X about the way the Council handled the Disabled Facilities Grant process which funded adaptations to his home. Mr Y says the work was completed to a poor standard. The Council accepts the contractor did not complete the work to a satisfactory standard. The Ombudsman has found fault in the process followed by the Council and delay responding to Mr X’s complaint and agreeing the remedial work. To remedy the injustice the Council should make a payment to Mr X and Mr Y, agree a way forward to carry out remedial work within specified timescales and put in place an action plan to address the issues raised in this complaint.

Summary: Mr X and Mr Y complained about the care their late wife and mother, Mrs F, received at Northfield Care home (the Care home) during April 2018. This was jointly arranged and funded by the Council and the Clinical Commissioning Group as Section 117 aftercare. The Council and the Clinical Commissioning Group were at fault. The care provided by the Care home to Mrs F was inadequate and it was slow to respond to Mrs F’s pressure sores. The Council was also at fault for delays in carrying out the safeguarding investigation. The Council and the Clinical Commissioning Group agreed to apologise and pay Mr X and Mr Y a total of £500 between them to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty caused by the faults.

Summary: Mr F complains on behalf of his mother about the care provider’s increase in fees and says it provided inadequate explanations. The Ombudsman has found no fault.

Summary: Mr X complained he was left without care at home for six weeks because the Council could not source a care provider. He said this caused him distress and put him in danger. The Council was not at fault.

Summary: The complainant complains the Council refused to offer her a deferred payment arrangement, to allow time for her to sell her house, to pay nursing home fees. The Council’s view was she did not need residential care. But the complainant says it did not take several issues into account. The Ombudsman finds no fault with the Council’s assessment, so cannot question the merits of its decision.

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his mother, Mrs Y, that the Care Provider, De Brook Lodge Care Home, did not explain the level of care it could offer her and failed to inform him she would need to move to another residential home if her needs increased. Mr X also complained the Care Provider did not properly care for Mrs Y for over a year. He said this caused his mother distress and financial loss. There was no fault in the Care Provider’s actions.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to properly handle the process of discharging her status as eligible for section 117 mental health after care services. The Council has not caused Mrs X significant injustice.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council has dealt with her subject access request. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because we expect Mrs X to refer this data protection issue to the Information Commissioner.

Summary: There was a five week delay by the Council before a safeguarding complaint was forwarded to the correct Council. This did not affect the outcome of the safeguarding investigation, as this took a further 6 months and found no evidence of abuse or neglect. An apology and review of procedures to ensure this does not happen again remedies the injustice caused by the delay and lack of explanation at a distressing time.

Summary: Mrs F complains on behalf of her mother about several aspects of her care at the Provider's residential care home. The Ombudsman has found there was one action which caused injustice to Mrs J, but this has already been remedied by an apology.

Summary: A legal representative complains on behalf of her client that the Council failed to provide an assessment of care needs by a social worker qualified to level 5 in deafblind assessments, contrary to a court order. The Ombudsman finds no fault by the Council in using a level 3 qualified assessor to undertake the assessment which began before the court order was made. However, the assessment process was incomplete as no care and support plan was drawn up, and the Council then failed to progress reassessment by a more qualified assessor. Ms B was caused injustice as a result, for which remedy has been agreed.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in 2013 in relation to safeguarding her aunt, Mrs Y. The complaint lies outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because it is late. I see no good reason to exercise discretion to consider this very late complaint now.

Summary: Mrs C complains about the way in which the Council managed her son’s transition from children’s social care services into adult social care services. Mrs C says the Council’s fault left her son without any support between January and July 2019. The Ombudsman found fault with regards to the Council’s actions. The Council has agreed to pay Mr X for the temporary loss of his support services and pay him and his mother for the distress this caused them

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that a care home disposed of her mother’s belongings without authorisation. This is because, ultimately, if the matter remains unresolved, it is not unreasonable to expect her to go to court.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to pay him direct payments to provide care to his partner’s, Ms B’s, mother, Mrs C. This is because it is unlikely he would find evidence of fault or make a different finding to that already provided to Mr B by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to take into account his uncle’s property as capital in determining the amount he should pay for his care. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to reduce his mother’s, Mrs C’s, top-up debt. This is because the Council has apologised for the delay in issuing the invoices and has agreed a repayment plan. The Ombudsman is satisfied this remedies the injustice caused by the fault.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s actions in placing a charge on his father-in-law’s property without consulting Mr X when Mr X held Power of Attorney for him. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because old events fall outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and because an investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault.

Summary: The care provider failed to offer Mrs A the proper care and treatment while she was resident. It failed to follow its own procedures after she fell. It acknowledged it made inaccurate records. The care provider agrees to apologise to Mr X and make a payment in recognition of the distress its actions caused.

Summary: The Care Provider acting on behalf of the Council failed to deliver calls on time which caused Mr and Mrs D anxiety and frustration. The Ombudsman cannot establish what happened during an alleged assault and the cause of broken taps. This is because there is no independent account of what happened and further investigation would not resolve the matter. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr & Mrs D and carry out an audit of the Care Provider.