Summary: The Care Provider failed to administer medication and record interventions properly. This potentially had serious health implications for Mrs D. The Care Provider has agreed to make procedural changes and a payment to Mrs D for uncertainty caused by its actions.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with her complaints about her mother’s care. Mrs X says she felt the Council bullied her into not pursuing her complaint and refused to accept the complaint raised on her mother’s behalf despite her mother lacking capacity to consent. The Ombudsman does not consider the Council was at fault for initially rejecting the complaint. While there was fault through delays this has not caused a significant personal injustice to Mrs X.

Summary: The Council’s Occupational Therapy report contained errors. When Mr C and his advocate brought this to the Council’s attention it did not promptly amend the report. The Council will now do so. The errors did not affect the Occupational Therapy service’s findings about Mr C’s needs and what equipment the Council provided to help him. Mr C is happy with the outcome.

Summary: Mr X complained about distress caused to him and his wife because of errors the Council made with a care assessment. He also complained the Council commissioned care with a provider he had complained about previously. We found there was fault. The Council apologised to Mr and Mrs X. The Council agreed to make a payment to recognise the distress caused.

Summary: Mrs C complains that care provided to her mother by Bluebird Care (Wiltshire South) was of poor quality. The Ombudsman finds there was some fault by the care provider in this case, causing injustice for which a remedy has been agreed.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain the Council refused to revise their adult daughter, Ms Y’s, care and support plan, despite evidence that a reduction in her care and support package had negatively affected her health and wellbeing. The Council was not at fault. It appropriately reviewed Ms Y’s care and support plan and considered all relevant information in its decision making.

Summary: The Council acknowledged officers made inappropriate comments about Mr X’s mental health before the complaint came to the Ombudsman, but it failed to offer an appropriate remedy. It has agreed to make a payment to reflect the distress caused. There is no fault by the Council in the way it considered Mr X’s request that his grandmother’s telephone and internet services be considered as disability related expenditure.

Summary: The Ombudsman finds fault with the way the Council handled Mrs B’s request to progress her complaint to stage two of the children’s services statutory complaints process. This means Mrs B was denied an independent investigation. The Council agrees actions to remedy the injustice.

Summary: The Council acted in accordance with the statutory guidance in the way it disposed of Mr and Mrs T’s possessions when they moved into a care home.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council handled a Blue Badge application because it is unlikely we would find fault causing significant injustice.

Summary: Mr B complains about contacts the Council had with him and his late mother in 2019 because of concerns for her welfare. We do not uphold the complaint finding no fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s contacts with him connected to enquiries it made into his mother’s welfare. We do not uphold the complaint finding no fault in the Council’s actions connected to those enquiries. While there was some fault in the Council’s complaint handling we find any injustice has since been remedied by its actions.

Summary: Ms C complained about the way in which the Council carried out her son’s care review and its decision to subsequently cut his support hours from four to eight. The Ombudsman did not find fault with regards to the process through which the Council reached its decision.

Summary: There was no significant fault, in how the Council assessed the complainant’s finances for a contribution to her care fees, nor how it pursued her for arrears. However, the Council did not properly deal with correspondence about this issue. It failed to recognise there was potential disability related expenditure (DRE) to disregard, and does not appear to have responded to complaints about the standards of care provided to the complainant. It has now agreed to determine whether there is valid DRE to disregard, and offer a financial remedy for the complainant’s representative’s time and trouble in pursuing these matters.

Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s decision not to prioritise an application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. The Council took account of all relevant circumstances, including the complainant’s husband’s condition, and gave clear reasons for its decision. There is also no evidence the Council failed to respond to enquiries about its policies, or failed in its duties under the Care Act. However, the Council was at fault for a delay in providing a piece of assistive equipment to the complainant, for which it has agreed a remedy.

Summary: Miss X complains that the Council failed to move her mother to a home closer to her family. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment for the uncertainty and distress caused.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council prematurely referred a safeguarding concern to the police and did not investigate her complaint properly. Mrs X says this caused her distress and endangered her job. There was no fault in the way the Council handled the safeguarding concern and subsequent investigation. The Council was at fault for not following is own complaint procedure, but this did not cause Mrs X an injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs C’s late complaint about the care her mother, Mrs D received following discharge from hospital. This is because there is no good reason for him to disapply the law to investigate now and could not provide a different outcome to that Mrs C has already received.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Care Home investigated her concerns about its care of her mother. This is because the complaint is late. In addition, Mrs X has instructed solicitors to start legal proceedings against the Care Home and it would be reasonable for her to continue with this.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the actions of the Council regarding her sister Mrs C. This is because the injustice caused to Mrs B and Mrs C from the Council’s actions is not significant enough to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. It is unlikely any further investigation could provide Mrs B with the outcome she wants.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a visit the complainant received from social services and the police. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs X complains she has been unfairly excluded from involvement with her mother’s care arrangements. The Ombudsman has identified one area of service failure involving storage of records. The Care Provider has agreed a change to the current practice.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council charged wrongly for some of her late mother’s care at home. She said she was caused frustration trying to resolve the issue. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because the Council has apologised to Miss X and offered an appropriate way to resolve the issues.

Summary: There was fault in the way the Council decided to move Mr C to a different placement. The Council did not properly respond to or negotiate with Mr C’s old placement when it asked for a fee increase. The Council did not properly consider whether the new placement could meet Mr C’s needs. The new placement did not always meet Mr C’s needs and did not always follow the care plan and guidance to assist Mr C at mealtimes. The Council has agreed to apologise to the family, pay them £2,000 and make service improvements.

Summary: Mr B complains that a Council-commissioned care provider did not provide the support in his care plan. He says this caused his care package to break down. Mr B also complains about the Council’s response to his safeguarding concerns. There is fault and the Council will put in place a clearer care plan.

Summary: Ms C complains staff at Dryclough Manor refused to allow her father, Mr D, to attend an urgent scan. He was admitted to hospital two days later. The Ombudsman does not find fault as the evidence suggests Mr D chose not to go to the scan.

Summary: Mr B complains about how the Council is meeting his care needs and how it has calculated his financial contribution to the care he receives. There appears to be fault in the financial assessment and this has caused Mr B uncertainty. The Council will invite Mr B to provide further evidence and give him more information about how he can access available services.

Summary: Mrs X complains BCT Care Services Ltd continued to charge her sister for support accessing the community, despite not being able to take her out of her care home because of COVID-19, and suggested Mrs X persuade the care home to let it do so. There is not enough evidence to say the care provider’s actions caused injustice which warrants a remedy.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision that she has misspent a further £19,472 of her son’s direct payments and says it failed to take account of the evidence she has provided. The Council has agreed to correct some misatkes in its figures, which will reduce the money it is claiming to £18,160.53. However, it was not at fault over deciding Mrs X misspent her son’s direct payments.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s delay issuing a DoLS authorisation for his father and about issues relating to financial assessment. There was no fault in the way the Council handled issues about financial assessment. But the Council was at fault for a significant delay in making a standard DoLS authorisation for Mr X’s father. Mr X’s father was not caused significant injustice by this. The Council is also at fault for failing to process DoLS applications for other people and there is potential injustice to them. The Ombudsman recommends the Council takes action to address the wider problem.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to correctly inform him about his mother’s care home fees. This inconvenienced Mr X and caused him distress during an already stressful and upsetting situation. The Council was at fault which caused Mr X an injustice. The Council have agreed to apologise and to pay Mr X a financial remedy.

Summary: Mrs Y complains on behalf of Mr X about the standard of care provided. Mrs Y has raised concerns about five separate matters and there is no evidence to suggest fault causing an injustice in relation to these issues.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision that she intentionally deprived herself of assets to avoid paying her care fees. She says she transferred her property to her son in May 2017 and, at the time, there was no indication she would fall ill and need care. The Ombudsman finds no fault with the Council’s decision that Mrs X had intentionally deprived herself of assets.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council should not have accepted his son into a care home as it was not able to meet his needs. We found the care home care was a suitable placement. However, there was fault as the Council failed to conduct a needs assessment to properly determine Y’s needs. We recommended an apology, and a review of the Council’s procedures.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of a disabled facilities grant and, in particular, that a local land charge was registered against his property. The Council was not at fault.

Summary: The Council considered the late Mr A’s views properly when it undertook a safeguarding investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider incorrectly completing a funding checklist for Mr Y’s father. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome Mr Y is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint the Council-funded Care Provider refused to provide her mother’s care records following her death. The records have now been provided to Miss X and our involvement would not now make a meaningful difference, as this was the outcome Miss X sought from complaining.

Summary: Mrs B complained in respect of her son Mr C, that the Council failed to provide an appropriate placement for him once he became an adult. The placement broke down within six weeks and he lived with Mrs B for seven months. Mr C was caused significant distress as a result of the unsuitable placement and Mrs B has also experienced significant stress. We find fault causing injustice and the Council has agreed to make payments to Mrs B and Mr C.

Summary: There is fault by the Council in this complaint. It failed to ensure the direct payment process was properly explained to Mrs Y, failed to monitor the direct payment account, and failed to address correspondence about the account to Mrs Y.

Summary: We uphold Ms X’s complaint. The Council is at fault because it: (1) stopped Ms X’s direct payment when a social worker had earlier agreed she could have a managed direct payment; (2) did not complete a formal review of her care and support plan and (3) took nine months to complete a care assessment and reinstate Ms X’s direct payment. The Council has already taken some appropriate action to remedy the injustice to Ms X. It will also apologise to Ms X for the fault and injustice identified.

Summary: the evidence does not show the actions of the care provider caused injustice to Mr D.

Summary: There was fault by the Council in failing to seek sufficient evidence, including from an expert assessor, before determining a blue badge application. This casts doubt on the decision reached. The Council will refer Ms X to an expert assessor and reassess her application. The Council will also review its application process to avoid similar problems arising in future.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s late complaint that his mother had to pay additional respite care costs because of delay in fixing the stairlift in her home. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the support his brother received while in sheltered housing run by the Council. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his mother’s move to a new care home in 2019 and about matters relating to his sister. This is because Mr X is not a suitable representative.

Summary: Mr X’s representative complained the Council delayed finding him an alternative placement after his supported living placement broke down. The Council was not at fault. It arranged an interim placement to meet Mr X’s care needs. It was at fault when it failed to clearly explain the time limits at the placement. However, this did not cause a significant injustice as Mr X’s representative was aware it was a short-term placement. There were some shortfalls in the care provided at the placement. The care home has already taken action to address these. There were also invoicing errors by the Council and delays in referring a safeguarding concern. The Council has already apologised for these errors. That is an appropriate remedy

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s refusal to make an exception to the rule preventing her mother from using direct payments to pay for care from Mrs X. There is some fault in the way the Council considered the request. The Council has agreed to apologise and make arrangements to consider the request on the basis that Mrs Y will not accept care from non-family members.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council charged her mother, Mrs Y, for residential care even though she was in hospital. The information provided shows the Council made the decision Mrs Y could not return to the care home on 2 September but continued to charge for the placement until 5 September. The Council will refund the equivalent of three days charge.

Summary: Mr B complains on behalf of his partner, Ms C, about the quality of care she received between August and November 2018. We uphold the complaint finding fault in the care arranged by the Council and delivered by TLC Sheffield Home Care Ltd. We also find fault in how the Council responded to Mr B’s service requests and complaint. This caused injustice to Mr B and his partner as distress. The Council accepts these findings. At the end of this statement we set out the action it has agreed to remedy the injustice caused to Mr B and Ms C and improve the service it provides to others.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about matters relating to his mother. This is because Mr X is not a suitable representative.

Summary: Mrs C complained about the care her (late) mother received at the care home she lived. The Ombudsman found the care home should not have given Mrs M strawberries, which she was allergic to. However, the care home has already apologised for this, as well for two incidents that involved another resident. This was an appropriate remedy for the injustice that occurred.

Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her parents, Mr and Mrs Y. She said the Council failed to properly explain third-party top-ups when arranging her father’s care and failed to offer a genuine choice of accommodation. The Council was not at fault in the choice of accommodation offered or in the information it provided about top-ups and financial assessments. However, it failed to complete the annual review of the third-party agreement causing Mrs Y financial hardship as she states she cannot afford the payments. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to waive the top-up fees from July 2020.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide full information about her financial assessment and the costs of her care. She also complained about the actions of the care provider, Embracing Care. The Ombudsman found there was fault causing injustice when the Council failed to provide enough information about charging. The Council agreed to a suitable remedy.

Summary: Mrs B complains for her son, C, that the Council’s Sensory Impairment Service within the education department, was unwilling to work with social care to continue support from a deaf tutor when C’s education ended. The Ombudsman finds that the Council was not at fault in failing to agree continued support from the tutor. However, there was fault in the failure to conduct a proper review or reassessment when that support came to an end. That led to injustice for which a remedy has been agreed.

Summary: The Council failed to properly consider Mrs X’s medical conditions when assessing her application for a blue badge. It also failed to undertake a mobility assessment.

Summary: Mr B complains on behalf of his mother, Mrs C, that the Council did not properly deal with a safeguarding concern about Mrs C because it entered her home without permission. The Council is at fault because it did not properly complete a safeguarding concern document, did not consider professional guidance, did not fully consider Mrs C’s wishes and entered her property without any legal basis to do so. Mrs C suffered distress. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs C, pay Mrs C £100 for her distress and issue advice to staff.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council was at fault in the way it provided support services to him to help with daily living skills and his hoarding habit. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters so has completed his investigation.

Summary: Mrs B complains that the Council did not properly provide domiciliary care to her mother Mrs G. Mrs G’s medication was missed and incorrectly administered, Mrs B’s complaints were not dealt with properly, Mrs G’s care plan was not updated properly, the Council did not inform Mrs B of safeguarding outcomes and Mrs B was not given the option of continuing care provision during the interim period after notice was given to stop Mrs G’s care. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B, pay Mrs B £250 for Mrs B’s distress, ensure complaint procedures are made available, review safeguarding cases and provide guidance to staff.

Summary: Mr and Mrs E complained the Council sent an unexpected bill of over £20,000 for the care fees of the late Mrs D two weeks after she died. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault because it failed to provide clear information and advice that Mrs D became fully responsible for her own care costs when she inherited Mr D’s property. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the increase in his mother’s, Mrs C’s care fees. This is because any further investigation would not be able to provide Mr B with a different outcome to that already provided by the care provider or one that he wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Care Provider lost a wedding photo album belonging to her and her late husband. The complaint is late, and there is not a good reason she did not complain to us sooner.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to reimburse him the costs of nursing care he provided to residents it placed with him. This is because paying for nursing care is not an administrative function of the Council. It would be reasonable for Mr C to ask the court to consider whether the Council has complied with the terms and agreements of the contract.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council in its role of Deputy for the complainant’s son. This is because such complaints need to be made to the Office of the Public Guardian.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to deal properly with the assessment of her care needs and unreasonably stopped her personal budget, leaving her without any support. There was no fault over stopping Ms X’s personal budget as, in effect, she made that decision herself. However, there was a failure to take a more flexible approach to assessing her needs. The Council needs to apologise, pay financial redress, identify and offer more flexible ways of assessing Ms X, and take action to prevent similar problems from happening again.

Summary: Mr K complains the Council ignored his requests for an assessment of his care and support needs, refused to appoint an independent advocate and did not deal with his complaint. The Ombudsman has found some fault which has caused injustice. The Council has already apologised. It has agreed to make a payment to Mr K to acknowledge the uncertainty caused.

Summary: The investigation into this complaint will discontinued. The Council acknowledged it wrongly instructed Mr X to increase the hourly rate paid to his personal assistant. It apologised and provided adequate information and support to enable Mr X to deal with any contractual matter arising from the error. The Ombudsman could achieve no more. The Ombudsman has no power to instruct the Council on the hourly rates paid to personal assistants.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council took three years to chase an outstanding balance owed for her mother’s care charges without any notice during this time that the balance was owed. Mrs X says that the estate was disbursed six months prior to the Council’s contact meaning that there is no money available for settlement of the balance. The Council was at fault for the delay in contacting Mrs X about the outstanding balance. I agreed with the Council’s offer to reduce the balance by £1,407.90.

Summary: Mrs A has complained about a safeguarding enquiry relating to the care her mother had at a care home. The Ombudsmen will not investigate as the Trust, acting on behalf of the Council, has made a number of improvements and we would not recommend any further action.

Summary: Mrs A has complained about a safeguarding enquiry relating to the care her mother had at a care home. The Ombudsmen will not investigate as the Trust, acting on behalf of the Council, has made a number of improvements and we would not recommend any further action.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council’s failure to communicate effectively with her regarding a blue badge application. This is because the Council has acknowledged the response she received was inadequate apologised and explained it has amended its customer care procedures when dealing with blue badge applications. The Ombudsman is satisfied this remedies the injustice caused to Ms B.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council did not explain her father’s care charges or take account of his mental impairment. This has led to a very large debt. The Ombudsman finds no fault causing injustice regarding the Council’s handling of the financial assessment and advice regarding Mr X’s contribution to care charges.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed meet his care needs since a care provider stopped visiting him in 2017, leaving him largely unsupported but also paying for his own care. The Council has accepted its failings and proposed a remedy. But it needs to do more as its proposal does not remedy all the injustice caused to Mr X.

Summary: Ms Z complains on behalf of Mr X that the Council has failed to provide care services; not taken account of his views when producing care plans; failed to provide large print copies of documents and sent invoices when he should not pay for his care. Mr X, until recently, was receiving direct payments and so he had the ability to source his own carers to meet his needs. The information provided shows that Mr X’s views were sought as part of the care planning process. The issues regarding large print copies and incorrect invoices have been acknowledged and action taken to resolve them.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council dealt with the charges for Mr X’s domiciliary care package resulting in her owing backdated fees causing distress. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters and has completed his investigation.

Summary: The care provider took appropriate action to supply medication to Mrs X when she was near the end of her life. There is no evidence Mrs X suffered an injustice as a result of the actions of the care provider.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council stopped his care package following a care and needs assessment in January 2020. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: The Council did not properly consider Ms X’s appeals against its decision about her father’s (Mr A’s) disability related expenditure allowances. There was also some delay in conducting both appeals and the Council agrees to apologise to Ms X and offer a payment in recognition.

Summary: The complainant says the Council’s adult social care service approved extensive adaptations to his home, but the Council refused to complete them in its role as landowner. Mr X says it then refused to provide a ramp access to his home preventing him getting in and out of his home for recreation affecting his overall wellbeing. The Council says it can only offer the full adaptation with the approval of the home- owner and will not offer partial adaptations which do not meet the assessed needs of the applicant. The Council accepts it did not follow up telephone communications with the complainant in writing. The Ombudsman finds the Council acted with fault in its communications with the complainant.

Summary: Ms B complained about the actions of a care provider in relation to her parents’ care. We have discontinued our investigation because Ms B is considering taking legal action against the care provider. This could impact on the Ombudsman’s ability to investigate her complaint. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers it best to await the outcome of Ms B’s decision before he can take a view on whether he is able to investigate.

Summary: Mr and Mrs Y complain about the Council’s involvement in their move to Extra Care Sheltered Housing and its refusal to pay a Peace of Mind charge, so they faced eviction action by the housing provider. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters so has completed his investigation.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a blue badge permit. She said the Council did not consider her hidden disability. The Ombudsman discontinued his investigation. This is because the Council has now awarded Ms X a blue badge and made changes to its assessment process for hidden disabilities.

Summary: Miss E complains about the way the Council reviewed her care and support plan. She says the Council sought to impose a reduction in her provision, without discussion. It also misrepresented conversations it had with professionals involved in her care. The Ombudsman upholds the complaint and has agreed an enhanced remedy.

Summary: The Council caused delay in completing Mr C’s adult social care assessment. The Council failed to always respond promptly to Mr C’s contact and failed to return requested telephone calls. The Council will apologise for its errors which caused Mr C some frustration, time and trouble. The Council’s actions in the assessment and support planning did not delay Mr C receiving care support, because the process has now stalled due to financial assessment concerns.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about possessions belonging to her father which went missing. This is because we could never say what happened to the items and so we cannot provide a worthwhile outcome for Mrs X.

Summary: The Ombudsmen will not investigate Mrs C’s complaints about four different councils. The complaint about Derby City Council is late and there are insufficient grounds to accept in now. The complaints about the other councils appear to have been raised with the Ombudsman without those councils having an opportunity to investigate.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about her mother’s jewellery being stolen from her room at the care provider’s care home. This is because Mrs X has told us she no longer wishes to pursue the complaint.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about domiciliary care provided to her mother. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault causing significant personal injustice. It is also unlikely we could add anything to the response Mrs X has already received.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to plan for her son, Mr F’s transition from children to adult care services. The Council was at fault. It failed to forward plan for Mr F’s transition to adult care services in line with statutory guidance. It meant Mr F missed out on a whole year of respite care and short break hours which were an assessed need. The Council agreed to pay Miss X a total of £1350 to remedy the significant distress, uncertainty and time and trouble this caused her and Mr F. It also agreed carry out a review of its procedures to prevent recurrence of the faults identified.

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to provide enough information about how Mr C could use a direct payment, and to suspend demand letters. The Council has agreed to apologise for the failures identified, waive the arrears that have accrued on Mr C’s account, and make a payment of £100 to Mr E for the distress, time and effort caused by the demand letters. The Council has agreed to remind staff to record what information it gives to people receiving services. It will also review information it provides about what direct payments can be used for.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide her with proper information about who was responsible for paying her mother, Mrs Y’s care home fees when she moved out of the Council’s area. Mrs X also complains the Council delayed carrying out an assessment of her mother’s social care needs. We found fault because the Council failed to provide this information. The Council also delayed carrying out an assessment on Mrs Y which would have revealed much sooner it considered the responsibility for funding Mrs Y was for another council. The Council has proposed a suitable remedy in this case and so we are completing our investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a Blue Badge application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: There is evidence of fault by the Care Provider. It failed to develop a care and support plan for Mrs Y, failed to undertake risk assessments and failed to implement behaviour charts. It also failed to keep contemporaneous records of an injury Mrs Y sustained.

Summary: The Council failed to consider Ms E’s cultural and religious needs when assessing her adult social care needs. The Council failed to give clear costs information about contribution to care charges. The Council failed to keep adequate records about decision making. The Care Provider acting on behalf of the Council failed to promptly tell Ms E’s family about a fall. The poor communication caused Ms E and her family upset and anxiety. Ms E’s social, cultural and religious needs may not have been met. To recognise this the Council will apologise and pay Ms E and her daughter £350 each, Ms E’s can be offset from her outstanding bill.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision not to renew her blue badge. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the Council’s assessment of Mrs X’s application and its decision to refuse a blue badge.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take any action following a safeguarding referral which left him at risk. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint further. This is because the incident happened too long ago, issues regarding data handling are better addressed by the Information Commissioner’s Office and there is no evidence this caused a significant injustice to Mr X.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that carers, acting on behalf of the Council, broke the complainant’s stairlift. This is because it is unlikely the Ombudsman could add to the Council’s response or that an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that he, acting on behalf of his brother Mr Y, set up a trust which deprived Mr Y of assets which should be used for him to self-fund his care. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in how it made its decision to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: Mr B complains on behalf of his son, Mr C, in connection with support he receives to meet his care needs. We uphold the complaint finding fault in a series of best interest decisions taken by the Council and in its actions following those decisions. There was also poor complaint handling by the Council. These faults caused injustice for Mr B and Mr C as a loss of service, distress, time and trouble. The Council accepts these findings and at the end of this statement we set out what action it has agreed to take to remedy this injustice.

Summary: There is no fault in the Council’s decision on the care needs of Mrs B after discharge from hospital. The social worker considered the views of the medical staff and family before reaching a professional judgement on the care needed without fault. The family say the care home fees they paid for 5 months should be refunded as the home carers were not acceptable to them. But, the Council offered a discharge to assess bed which would have allowed further assessment of Mrs B.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the actions of a care home. She says the care home did not consult with her before it gave notice on her mother’s placement and did not tell her it would charge the full care fees if possessions were left in her mother’s room. She also complains about charges made regarding some sundry items. The Ombudsman finds fault with the care home for not consulting with Mrs X, not providing information about its charges, and for not keeping accurate records. We have made recommendations.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council wrongly told him it would stop funding care for his mother. Mr X says that this statement, which the Council accepts was incorrect, prompted him to give up his job to care for his mother. He said the family were caused distress and anxiety. The Council was at fault for misinforming Mr X. Following Ombudsman involvement, it has offered a remedy which we consider appropriate.

Summary: The Council acknowledges the Care Provider failed to clarify timings of home care visits and that there were occasions when Mr Y’s care was not delivered in accordance with his care plan.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s use of his personal data. This is because this is a matter best considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the care his late father, Mr C received or charging for the care. This is because Mr B’s complaint is late and there is no good reason for the Ombudsman to disapply the law to investigate it now.

Summary: Ms C complained about the temporary care her (late) father received in a nursing home, which was commissioned by the Council. The Ombudsman found there was fault with the care Mr F received, and the way in which the care provider responded to Ms C’s complaint. This resulted in distress for which the Council has agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy.

Summary: Mr C complains about the way in which the Council has dealt with his request for adaptations to his house and his request to provide ongoing support to him at home. The Ombudsman found fault with the way the Council assessed Mr C’s needs, for which the Council has agreed to apologise.

Summary: Mrs C complained about the homecare Mr F received. She complained about the timing of visits, the cleanliness of Mr F’s property and an alleged delay in involving the GP on two occasions. The Ombudsman found there were incidents when it took too long in the morning for Mr F to receive his breakfast or personal care. The care provider has agreed to provide an apology for this.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in carrying out care and carers assessments. The Council offered to carry out further assessments in 2017 but as the family did not reply to a letter the social worker closed the case. When the family made a complaint in 2019, the Council carried out the assessments and put a care and support package in place.

Summary: The Ombudsmen will not investigate Mrs N’s complaint about her brother Mr D’s care and support from the Council and Trust in November and December 2018. The complaint is late and we have not seen sufficient reasons to investigate it now.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the actions of her father’s, Mr C’s care provider. This is because the care provider has apologised for the fault, amended its policies to ensure charging is clear and agreed to waiver Mr C’s outstanding invoice. The Ombudsman is satisfied this remedies the injustice caused to Mrs B and Mr C.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council decision to recover money in his sister’s Ms C’s, direct payment account. This is because there is no unremedied injustice warranting an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Care Provider included incorrect details on her father in law, Mr Y’s care plan, and failed to address her complaint about this and other concerns she raised. She said this put her and her family to unnecessary time and trouble and caused confusion and distress. The Care Provider was not at fault in its management of Mr Y’s care.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a decision by the Council following it completing a financial assessment related to residential care costs. This is because I cannot make any determination of fault by the Council and I cannot question the merits of a decision in the absence of fault. The Council has admitted the assessment was delayed; its offer of £250 to the complaint and his brother is a satisfactory remedy and the Ombudsman not taken any further action.

Summary: Miss X complains about the care needs assessment completed by the Council. She says the assessment was flawed and did not consider correct information. She also complains the Council did not provide her with an advocate or make reasonable adjustments. The Ombudsman finds fault as the Council’s assessment was likely not an accurate record of what was discussed with Miss X. We do not find fault with the Council’s decision not to appoint her an advocate or to make reasonable adjustments.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council is requiring him to provide proof of how direct payments for social care are spent and questioned his financial probity. The Council has not caused Mr X an injustice. It has not concluded its audit.

Summary: Mr B complains the Home did not reduce his mother’s care fees after she received Funded Nursing Care. He says when he first moved his mother into the Home, it indicated that it would work to get any benefits due to her that would reduce the costs. He says the Home continues to receive the Funded Nursing Care (“FNC”) while charging a higher fee. The Ombudsman finds fault in how the Home communicated the way it treats FNC and the impact on its fees.

Summary: Mr X complained about two care providers who cared for his mother on behalf of the Council. We will not investigate this complaint. The complaint about the first care provider is too late. The complaint about the second care provider relates solely to damage to property, so it would be better considered by the courts.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of the care provider or its decision to charge fees while the complainant was in hospital. This is because the complainant is in the process of taking legal action against the care provider which places the complaint outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss Q’s complaint about the care her mother received in her nursing home or the unpaid top-up fees it is asking her to pay. This is because the complaint is late.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the fees for an appointee service the Council commissioned for Mrs X’s father. This is because there is not a good reason for the delay in complaining to the Ombudsman.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to end his day centre attendance. There is no fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Summary: The Ombudsmen have decided not to investigate a complaint about a Council and an NHS Trust’s decision not to share a surgery date with a patient’s family because it was late. We have seen no reason why the complainant could not have brought the complaint to the Ombudsmen sooner.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Miss B’s complaint about the housing repairs team’s service. This is because her complaint is about what the Council has done as a landlord managing its social housing.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council refused to arrange repairs to the work it funded through a Disabled Facilities Grant in 2013. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault.

Summary: Mr B complained the Council delayed completing a financial investigation, wrongly treated his mother as having deprived herself of capital and incorrectly calculated the date when his mother’s assets fell below the capital threshold. The Council delayed completing the financial investigation but there was no fault in its decision to treat Mr B’s mother as having deprived herself of capital. The Council failed to consider whether to reduce the amount in light of the amount Mr B had paid. An apology and agreement to reconsider the amount to be treated as deprivation once Mr B has provided outstanding information is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council did not provide her family with information that she would potentially have to pay for the full cost of her care fees. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council. This is because it did provide Mrs X’s family with information she would have to pay for the full cost of her care fees if her capital was over the limit of £23,250.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with him and Miss Y. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the way the Council dealt with the situation.

Summary: Miss B complains about how the Council dealt with assessments of her social care needs and associated housing needs. The Ombudsman finds there was some fault by the Council, for which a remedy has been agreed.

Summary: Mr B complains on behalf of his late father, Mr C, that the care provider commissioned by the Council to provide domiciliary care for him failed to provide the agreed care. The Ombudsman finds there is insufficient evidence that the standard of care provided was inadequate but the daily visit logs completed by the carers were insufficiently detailed causing uncertainty as to whether the agreed support was provided. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and pay him £250 in recognition of this uncertainty.

Summary: Miss X complained that a carer working for Royal Mencap Society (Mencap) mistreated her son, Y while providing him with support. We found there was fault that warranted a remedy.

Summary: Ms C complains that her daughter’s reduced homecare package no longer meets her needs. The Ombudsman did not uphold Ms C’s complaint.

Summary: Mr C complained to us about the way in which the Council dealt with his uncle’s contribution to this homecare support. The Ombudsman found fault with the actions of the Council. It failed to provide enough information about charging, before the care package started, and failed to properly deal with questions Mr C raised about this, as well as his complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise and remind its staff about the importance of providing comprehensive information about charging and properly recording discussions about this.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to charge Mrs Y for her care following discharge from hospital, which she believes should be free. Also, that it did not tell her a charge would apply. She says this caused Mrs Y a financial loss as she was still paying for her flat and the Council should waive the charge. The Ombudsman finds the Council was not at fault in the way it dealt with Mrs X.

Summary: Mr B complains about how the Council handled his application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. He says that delays meant he had to rent a house to care for his mother as he could no longer do so at his house. The delay was largely caused by Mr B pursuing works above and beyond those recommended by the Occupational Therapist and because his caring responsibilities meant he was unable to manage the project himself. There was no fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms X complains about the tone of communication she received from a member of staff at the day centre her disabled brother attends. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Ms X to warrant an investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Ms D’s complaint about decisions made by the Council during a best interest meeting about her partner, as this is not a matter for the Ombudsman. Whilst there is evidence of fault in how the Council responded to Ms D’s safeguarding concerns and complaint, this did not cause her or her partner an injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsmen find that Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust missed the opportunity to ensure Mrs X had appropriate support in place when it discharged her from section 3 of the Mental Health Act. However, there was no injustice to Mrs X. She would most likely have refused the Trust’s support in favour of private care and treatment.

Summary: There was fault by the Council in failing to arrange emergency daytime cover. The fault led to distress for a disabled lady as she had to call an ambulance. The Council’s apology and payment of £150 remedies this injustice. Complaints about the timing of a late evening call, missed care visits, delays by the Council in arranging suitable care after a second care provider gave notice and the uncertainty it caused are not upheld. The Council could not obtain the service from any care providers and did offer alternatives.

Summary: There was delay by the Council when carrying out a safeguarding investigation and responding to an official complaint. Mrs B was no longer in the care home complained about, so a £250 payment and an apology remedies her daughters injustice of time and trouble pursing the complaint. There is no evidence of inadequate care by the care home. The Council properly carried out the safeguarding enquiry but there was minor fault, in that it was missing details of whether the care homes medication policy complied with the fundamental standards of care.

Summary: The Ombudsmen found that a Council complied with the Ombudsmen’s recommendations to complete a care review for an individual, in line with the Mental Health Act Code of Practice. The Ombudsmen found fault with governance arrangements between the Council and the CCG, but this did not cause any injustice in this case. The Ombudsmen has recommended actions to address this.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to carry out the agreed works under a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). There was a change to the specification of works which the Council failed to put in writing. This was fault. However, we found the change to the specification was necessary and followed professional advice. So, on balance we did not conclude Mrs X paid for more works than were necessary to complete the adaptation of her home. The Council agreed to recognise the time and trouble Mrs X was put to pursuing her complaint and to review some if its procedures.

Summary: There is evidence of fault by the care home, it failed to seek Mrs Y’s views about alleged comments made by Mrs X. It later failed to establish Mrs Y’s wishes about future visits from Mrs X. The care home failed to deal with Mrs X fairly.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s late complaint about the Council’s decision not to award her mother, Mrs C, direct payments under its discretion to do so. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason for the Ombudsman to exercise his discretion to investigate now.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council after the complainant had work done to her home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide him with a blue badge. This is because it is unlikely any further investigation by the Ombudsman could add to the Council’s response or provide Mr B with the outcome he wants.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint that she is not listened to by the Council and her wishes and feelings are not being properly considered. This is because it is unlikely he would find enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: The Council had a duty under the Care Act to ensure the late Mrs X was left with her Personal Expenses Allowance (PEA). Its records show it deducted the PEA from the total of Mrs X’s income before it calculated her client contribution.

Summary: There was fault in the way the Council assessed Ms B’s needs for care and support and provided a care plan. There was a lack of clarity and analysis in the documents which meant it was difficult to see what Ms B’s needs were and how they would be met. The Council has re-assessed Ms B twice since then and the care plan remains the same. The Council has therefore remedied the fault and the Ombudsman does not recommend any further remedy.

Summary: The Council is at fault for failing to be clear about whether the services it provided were chargeable. The Council is also at fault for delays in invoicing and complaint handling. These faults have caused Mrs C frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to remind officers about the importance of clearly explaining whether services are chargeable especially when leaving hospital. It will also review how it deals with complaints to avoid delay.

Summary: The Care Provider’s actions did not cause injustice in this case. The Care Provider has taken steps to try and ensure the security of Mrs D’s hearing aids, but cannot be responsible for items in her possession, in accordance with its terms and conditions of contract.

Summary: Mr B complained that the Council failed to adequately explain to him why it had refused his application for a Blue Badge. We find the Council at fault and it has agreed to process a new application for Mr B.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the investigation into a fall his father had while a resident at a Council run care home. We would be unlikely to find fault with the investigation and we are satisfied with the action the Council proposes to take.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about contact the complainant has with the social care team and a complaint that the Council has not done a new assessment for aids and equipment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms A complains that her mother, Mrs B, was unsafely discharged from hospital before she was ready, and without the right care in place at home. The Ombudsmen find no fault in the decision that Mrs B was ready for discharge from hospital. However, the Council has accepted there was fault in its arrangements for Mrs B’s care once she returned home and it has provided an appropriate remedy.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to involve her in her mother, Mrs Z’s, financial assessments even though she has power of attorney, failed to assign Mrs Z a social worker between 2017 and 2019 and did not carry out proper needs assessments. The Council was not at fault when it did not assign Mrs Z a social worker. It was at fault when it did not send Ms X copies of Mrs Z’s annual financial assessments but this did not cause an injustice. The Council should remind staff of the need to send financial assessments where someone holds power of attorney. The Council was also at fault when it took too long to review Ms Z’s care and support plan but there is no evidence she missed out on care she needed. If Ms X believes Ms Z was entitled to funded nursing care she can make a retrospective application to the NHS.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the care provided to her late mother, Mrs Y, at the care home. The care provider was at fault. It failed to note Mrs X’s concerns, failed to follow instructions regarding laundry, failed to record when it had followed up a continuing health care assessment, was short staffed on a day Mrs X visited and it used Mrs Y’s products on other residents. The care provider has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £250 to acknowledge the distress and frustration the faults caused. It has also agreed to provide evidence to the Ombudsman to show it has completed the actions it agreed to take to prevent the faults recurring.

Summary: Mr and Mrs C complained about the way in which the Council dealt with Mr X’s financial assessment for temporary and permanent residential care, and in particular with the issue of discretionary property disregards. The Ombudsman found fault with the way the Council communicated, the delay in completing a financial assessment and the manner in which it considered the discretionary property disregard. The Council has agreed to apologise, remind its staff of the importance of timely and comprehensive information and revise its discretionary disregard report form.

Summary: Mr C complains about the way in which the Council has carried out his financial assessment, and the Council’s subsequent decision that he needs to pay a contribution for his care. The Ombudsman found the Council failed to discuss Disability Related Expenses (DREs) at the first financial assessment visit. Furthermore, when the Council considered Mr C’s DREs, it failed to explain to him why it decided it would not treat some of his expenses as DRE. The Council has agreed to provide an apology for this and inform its staff about the lessons learned.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to assess her husband’s care needs properly, failed to communicate with her properly, misled her regarding his care costs and delayed carrying out a financial assessment. There was no fault in the way the Council assessed Mr X’s care needs or in its decision to charge Mr X for his care costs. The Council was at fault for the delay in carrying out the financial assessment, delay in contacting Mrs X on occasions and for the failure to provide information to Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £250 to acknowledge the frustration and uncertainty this caused.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council wrongly assessed her social care eligible needs and wrongly carried out a financial assessment to calculate her contribution towards her service charges. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the Council carried out the financial assessment. The Council has accepted it was at fault in the way it carried out the social care assessment of Ms X’s eligible needs causing an injustice to Ms X because of confusion whether she qualified for help toward her care needs. And Ms X may have been paying for costs herself she did not need to. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused in this case, so we are completing our investigation.

Summary: There is evidence of fault in this complaint. Between March 2018 and September 2019, the Council failed to ensure all Mrs X’s needs were met. It focused only on her personal care needs and failed to take account of her domestic situation. The Council’s failures caused an injustice to the whole family, but particularly to Mr X who suffered the strain of an increased caring role.

Summary: Mr X complains about defamation of character due to allegations the Council included in a report to the Court of Protection. We cannot investigate this complaint because it is about the content of reports provided for the court, which the law prevents us from considering.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s Safeguarding Team and the care Mrs Z received in her nursing home. We cannot achieve the outcome Mr B is seeking. And it would be reasonable for him to go to court about the matter.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaints about the Council’s actions regarding his son, Mr C. This is because it is unlikely he would find enough evidence of fault to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: Mr and Mrs C complained about the way in which the Council has dealt with their request for adaptations to their property. They say the Council suddenly told them, after three years, that it would no longer pursue the option of an extension to their house. They are unhappy with the reasons provided by the Council for its decision. The Ombudsman found fault with the way in which the Council explained its decision. The Council has agreed to apologise for this.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the standard of care provided to her foster father. She says there were signs her foster father’s ability to cope at home had declined and the Council did not take action to safeguard him. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for not arranging appropriate care and support for her foster father in January 2018. We also find fault with the Council for not completing a mental capacity assessment. We do not find fault with the Council’s care assessments.

Summary: The Council failed to advise Mrs Q about changes to her mother’s care plan. The Council also failed to keep accurate and timely records of the care provided to Mrs Q’s mother. The Ombudsman has made recommendations for action the Council should take to prevent the same fault recurring in future.

Summary: The Council has already upheld Ms C’s complaint that there was a delay in providing her with an occupational therapist assessment. The Council has apologised for this and that is an appropriate remedy. The Ombudsman has not found any other evidence of fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how a care home looked after Mr Y and how it handled its communication with Mr X. It is unlikely that further investigation would lead to a different outcome. Nor should we investigate Mr X’s allegation the Care Home defamed him. This is a matter for the courts.

Summary: The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation as the Council has offered a re-assessment of Mrs C to decide whether she is eligible for a Blue Badge.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint as it is late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now. Also, the Information Commissioner’s Office are better placed to consider a complaint about data protection than the Ombudsman.

Summary: The Ombudsmen cannot investigate a complaint about treatment and support provided to a family member by a Trust, a CCG and a Council for mental health and alcohol dependency services because it is late. We have seen no reason the complainant could not have brought the complaint to the Ombudsmen sooner.

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his father, Mr Y, that fees paid to Hollow Oak Nursing Home were not reduced following an NHS funding award. He said the home’s information about fees was unclear. The Ombudsman found the home’s contract could have been clearer. However, it did not suggest fees would reduce following an award of funded nursing care.

Summary: Miss Y complains about the care her late relative, Mrs X, received and says she was excluded from Mrs X’s care planning. She also says Council staff failed to act during a visit in 2019 when Mrs X had suffered bruises and cuts. While the Council made a minor error in its complaint response, I do not find this significant enough to represent fault. I find no evidence of fault in the Council’s care planning and it is not proportionate to pursue Miss Y’s allegations about the visit in 2019.

Summary: A legal representative complains for his client Mr B about the charges he is paying for his care and support, which he says are too high, leaving him with income below the level of the Minimum Income Guarantee. The Ombudsman finds there was fault by the Council in its failure to update its charging policy to reflect the government guidance it was applying, but this did not lead to injustice for Mr B.

Summary: The investigation into this complaint will be discontinued. The Council has now agreed to fund the full cost of Ms Y’s residential care placement.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the actions of social workers before 2018. The complaint is late, and Miss X could have approached the Ombudsman sooner.

Summary: Mrs B complained on behalf of her father, Mr C that the Council had made unreasonable requests for information in respect of Mr C’s financial assessment for care services. The Council’s current position means that Mr C has to pay for the full cost of his care. We found some of the requests for information were unreasonable and were not available to Mr C. The Council has agreed to carry out a reassessment. We accept that its recent request for information is reasonable.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s fitting and positioning of a stair lift in her home. She says it is unsafe and not installed in the way she had been led to believe. The Council is not at fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with safeguarding concerns. This is because the complainant is satisfied with the response he has now had from the Council and the matter he was complaining about has been resolved.

Summary: There is evidence of fault in this complaint. The Council took too long to complete a financial assessment which led to Mr & Mrs X receiving a large bill. There is no evidence to suggest the Council told Mrs X the care would be free.

Summary: Mr Y complains about the Council’s decisions on Mrs X’s care charges, causing financial loss, distress, time and trouble. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault because it did not provide adequate, timely or accurate information on care charges. The Ombudsman recommends the Council provides Mr Y with an apology and payment for distress, time and trouble; waives Mrs X’s invoice for client contributions and; takes action to prevent recurrence.

Summary: Mrs C complained about the way in which the Council carried out her daughter’s care review and about the Council’s decision to reduce her care support. The Ombudsman found fault with the way the Council reached its decision, the lack of explanation it provided, and the time it took to deal with their complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise for the distress this caused and pay a financial remedy. It will also carry out a reassessment of Ms D’s needs.

Summary: Mr X complains about the actions of a care provider in providing domiciliary care to his mother, Mrs Y. The Ombudsman has not found evidence the actions of the care provider caused an injustice to Mr X or Mrs Y so has completed his investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council ended her care and support plan. She also complains the Council did not provide her with information about how she would be charged for her care. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for not completing a reassessment before ending Mrs X’s care.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council’s social worker failed to advise her that her mother’s non-residential care would be chargeable. Miss X also complained the bills sent through kept changing and were inaccurate. The Council was at fault for the delay in completing the financial assessment. That fault caused Miss X to be unaware of the cost of care. The Council agreed to reduce the care costs by £479.54 to reflect the delay.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Care Provider placing restrictions on visiting her mother at the end of her life, due to the Covid-19 pandemic. We will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Care Provider’s actions.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about failures in the Council’s safeguarding investigation into her father’s care. This is because the Council has taken appropriate and proportionate action to address the faults identified by the Safeguarding Adults Review and we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. This is because the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman is better placed to consider her complaint.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr B’s personal data and his subject access request. This is because there is another body better placed to consider the matter.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council was at fault as it failed to provide her with information to help her deal with the administration of her late aunt’s estate. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters so has completed his investigation.

Summary: Mr H complained about the care provided at a council commissioned care home for his wife Mrs X. There was no fault in the care provided. The Council was at fault when it failed to ensure an effective handover between care homes. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr H and to pay him £150 to acknowledge the frustration and worry this caused. It has also agreed to remind council commissioned care providers of the need to ensure an effective handover of care, when residents move between care homes.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council failed to inform them that Mrs X’s care was chargeable prior to receiving an invoice for the care. Mr and Mrs X also complained about charges being applied after they had cancelled the care package and for cancelled visits. The Council accepted fault for the delay in confirming the care charges and offered to reduce the charges to £1,345.36. The Council accepted the Ombudsman’s recommendation of a further reduction of £774.08 to reflect the injustice caused through the Council’s delay.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to renew the complainant’s Blue Badge. This is because the Council has offered to do a mobility assessment and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Summary: There is no fault in how the Council assessed Miss X’s need for care and support. The Council did not ultimately require her to use a payroll company to manage her direct payments and so there is no injustice to Miss X.

Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council did not properly consider her application for a blue badge. This meant she put significant time and trouble both into pursuing an application which was wasted, and her complaint about this. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault in the way it considered her application. He recommended it pay Mrs X £250 and take action to ensure it properly considers applications in future. The Council agreed to this.

Summary: Mr C complained the Council incorrectly placed a charge on his property for works completed following the death of his wife. He also complained the Council delayed completing outstanding works arising from the Disabled Facilities Grant. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault for not providing Mr C with a revised approval of costs for the reinstatement works. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused to Mr C.

Summary: Ms X did not have a written care plan setting out her care needs. This meant the service to her was not in line with care regulations applicable in care homes. The Care Provider will apologise, make payments and ensure all new residents have care plans on admission.

Summary: Mrs R says the Council has wrongly required her daughter, Ms C, to pay for respite care breaks and wrongly stated that Ms C does not need her carers while in respite care which has caused them injustice as they cannot afford to pay for the respite care. The Council was not at fault. It carried out financial and needs assessments as required. It was entitled to charge as it did according to the criteria set out in the relevant statutory guidance.

Summary: Mr B complains about how the Council assessed his mother’s needs. He says the Council should have arranged a translator for the assessment and it was therefore inaccurate. Mr B says his mother is not receiving sufficient care as a result. The evidence suggests some fault. The Council will remedy the injustice.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly advise her son about the cost of residential care and about its complaint handling. This led to a large and unexpected invoice. The Ombudsman has found the Council to be at fault. The Council has agreed to apologise, reduce the charges for care and review its practices.

Summary: Ms F complains on behalf of Mr C that the Council refuses to stop being Mr C’s appointee and allow him to manage his own benefits. The Ombudsman has discontinued this investigation as there is another body better placed to consider the complaint.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council is failing to meet his care needs and carried out flawed Care Act assessments of his needs. The Council was at fault. It carried out flawed Care Act needs assessments in 2017 which on balance contributed to a lack of care and support for him until June 2018. It also failed to adequately record and document its decision making and delayed carrying out an agreed action following its own stage 2 investigation. The Council agreed to pay Mr X a total of £1150 to remedy the injustice the faults caused. Since June 2018 the Council has offered to carry out a fresh needs assessment using an Independent Social Worker. It has also regularly offered him interim care packages. This is in line with relevant law and statutory guidance. It remains open for Mr X to accept and undertake a fresh needs assessment.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his concerns about his daughter’s, Ms D’s, direct payments. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council or that either Mr B or Ms D have been caused any significant injustice by the Council’s actions to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council is asking her for payment of unpaid home support and day opportunity charges for a person (Mr Y) in her care because she signed a deed of guarantee in 2012. The Ombudsman has not found fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about charging for her father’s, Mr D’s care. This is because the Council has acknowledged the fault and paid Ms B the money agreed. The Ombudsman is satisfied with the actions taken by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsmen find no fault in the actions of a community health team. Staff considered relevant information before deciding to discharge Ms T from active care coordination, and it had a reasonable explanation for why it could not help with a benefit application ahead of time.

Summary: Mrs X says the care provider should reimburse the monetary value of her late mother’s wedding ring lost in the care home. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint as Mrs X has not suffered significant personal injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr Q’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to do repairs to his council property or its refusal to give him an allocated parking space. This is because we have no jurisdiction to investigate the housing management issues complained of.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a stairlift. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, it is a late complaint and because the Council is working with the complainant to try and find a solution.

Summary: Mrs X has decided to take legal action against the Council and so the Ombudsman cannot now investigate her complaint.

Summary: There is fault by the Council in its response to Miss X’s safeguarding concern. The Council has partly remedied the injustice by carrying out a retrospective safeguarding enquiry. The Council will issue written guidance to personal assistants and commissioned care providers about the use of supermarket reward cards. This action will minimise the chance of recurrence.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to review/assess his needs properly, has failed to give him a personal budget which is sufficient to meet his eligible care needs and is denying him his reasonable preferences. The evidence does not support the claim that there has been fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council agreed to an increase in Mrs Y’s care home charges without notice, causing her financial loss and putting him to time and trouble. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault in its handling of Mrs Y’s care charges causing injustice. The Ombudsman recommends the Council provides a refund to Mrs Y, pays Mr X £100 for time and trouble and takes action to prevent recurrence.

Summary: Mrs G complains the Council did not deal properly with her father, Mr X’s, about his care placement. The Council was at fault because it delayed telling Mrs G that Mr X could not return to his residential home, its communication afterwards was poor, it didn’t record a decision properly and it didn’t fully respond to her complaint. The Council should apologise to Mrs G and pay Mrs G £250 for the distress caused. The Council has already reviewed its working practices in relation to Mrs G’s complaint.

Summary: Ms F complains about the quality of care provided to her late mother at a nursing home funded by the Council. The Ombudsman has found fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms F.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to make appropriate arrangements to meet his assessed care and support needs. He says he was discriminated against as a gay man causing considerable distress and frustration. The Council was at fault because his direct payment took too long to arrange and the remedy offered to Mr X was inadequate. The Council has agreed to make an additional payment to Mr X to cover his private care costs. The Ombudsman did not find fault in the other areas of complaint.

Summary: Mr F complains the Council’s 2019 assessment failed to properly determine his care and support needs. The Ombudsman has not found fault.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain on behalf of Mrs X’s mother, Mrs Y, about the Council’s decision that she deprived herself of an asset to avoid its inclusion in a financial assessment for care. Mr and Mrs X say Mrs Y has unfairly had to pay for the care she receives. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the poor standard of care her late aunt received from her care provider at the end stage of her life. This is because the Council has investigated the concerns, addressed the failings, and set up an action plan to minimise the risk of the same matters happening again in the future. It is unlikely further investigation could add to this or make a different finding even if the Ombudsman investigated.

Summary: Ms X complains about inaction by the Council during her father’s discharge from hospital and also that the Council did not properly consider her father’s wellbeing in its dealings with her and her father. There was fault by the Council because of an inappropriate comment by one of its officers. The complaint is closed because the Council acted to remedy that injustice.

Summary: Ms X and Mr T complained about the Council’s decision to refuse a direct payment previously used to pay for Ms X’s respite care. This caused distress and inconvenience to them both. The Ombudsman has found the Council to be at fault because this unfairly restricted their choice and was contrary to the relevant legislation. This fault has been accepted by the Council during the course of this investigation. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to both Mr T and Ms X and review its policy.

Summary: Ms X complained about some aspects of care her friend, Ms Z, received at a care home. She said this caused Ms Z distress and she had to move to a different care home. The care provider has already said it was at fault when it failed to administer Ms X’s eye drops on four occasions. It has taken satisfactory steps to amend its procedures and remedy the injustice this caused.

Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her father, Mr Y, about the Council’s lack of intervention to help a vulnerable neighbour, Mr A, who was unable to manage his home. The Ombudsman found the Council was not at fault because it did offer suitable support to Mr A.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council-commissioned care home failed to provide her late mother, Mrs Y, with suitable care. She says the poor care caused her mother to have a fall which resulted in a hospital admission. She also said the care home’s record keeping was inadequate. The care home, acting on behalf of the Council, is at fault. There is no evidence poor care caused Mrs Y’s fall, but there is evidence of poor record keeping and poor communication. This caused Mrs X uncertainty over what happened and whether Mrs Y was receiving appropriate care. The care provider will write to Mrs X to apologise for the faults and for the uncertainty and distress caused.

Summary: There is evidence of fault by the Council in this complaint. The reassessment of Mrs X’s care needs was flawed. It was incomplete and took account of factors it should not. The Council failed to establish if Mrs X’s husband was willing and able to provide support and it failed to offer him a carers assessment. The Council then reduced Mrs X’s support hours based on a flawed assessment. Mrs X has been denied a fair assessment of her needs.

Summary: Ms B complains an assessment of her son under the Mental Health Act did not take account of her views. We do not uphold this, although we do find fault in the failure of the Council to investigate Ms B’s complaint properly. This caused her injustice in unnecessary time and trouble. The Council accepts this finding and has agreed to apologise and make a financial payment to Ms B in recognition of her injustice.

Summary: Mrs W complained on behalf of two relatives about the Council’s delay carrying out financial assessments for the support they received at home. She also complained about delays in the Council’s complaints procedure. The Council was at fault for delaying financial assessment for one of the relatives which meant she missed some direct payments. The Council has agreed to pay the relative the equivalent of the missed payments. The Council has apologised for its delays in the complaints procedure and that is an appropriate remedy. The Council has also agreed to complete the outstanding recommendation from the complaints procedure.

Summary: Ms X complains about the care her mother received when the Council arranged for her to stay at Lennox House for respite care. The Council accepts there were failings over her mother’s placement and has apologised. There are no grounds to ask the Council to do more than that.