Summary: Ms B complains the Council has not put in place adult care services for her or her son, Mr C. The Council did not support Ms B to access the services she wants and it will now do so. However, the Council appropriately supported Mr C.

Summary: Ms B complains the Council has not put in place adult care services for her or her son, Mr C. The Council did not support Ms B to access the services she wants and it will now do so. However, the Council appropriately supported Mr C.

Summary: Mrs D complained that Council failed to safeguard her mother, Mrs C, from financial abuse. The Council has accepted that it did not progress its safeguarding investigation quickly enough. Mrs D has suffered an injustice as she cannot be satisfied her concerns were taken seriously. The Council will take action to remedy this injustice.

Summary: We found fault on the part of a domiciliary care provider regarding its decision to suspend the care package of a vulnerable woman with complex needs due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We also found fault by the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) for the advice it provided to the care provider and family. The care provider and CCG will apologise to the family and pay them a financial sum in recognition of the impact of this fault on them. We also found fault with the Council’s handling of the initial safeguarding enquiries but are satisfied it has acted to put matters right.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council handled the care costs for her mother after she moved into a care home in March 2017. The Council was at fault for not taking action sooner when the outstanding care costs were building up. It has suggested a solution to the outstanding costs issue and should review its processes to prevent recurrence of the fault.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the care provided to her mother, Mrs M, on behalf of the Council, which she said caused her mother to catch COVID-19, leading to her death. The Council was not at fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the respite care his brother received. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault, and it is unlikely we could add anything to the response Mr X has already received.

Summary: there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council decided to discharge Ms X from its social care service. Support from the mental health team remains available.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to advise her that COVID-19 NHS funding for her mother, Mrs Y’s care had ended, or that it had completed an assessment of her needs. The Council was at fault as it did not share a copy of the assessment with Mrs X and delayed telling her the funding had ended. This meant Mrs Y avoidably incurred care home fees. If the Council had given clear, timely information she would have moved in with Mrs X sooner. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and to refund some of the care fees to Mrs Y.

Summary: Miss B complained about the Council’s decision not to issue her a Blue Badge. We have found there was fault in how the Council recorded its decision not to offer Miss B a face-to face assessment, but this has not caused Miss B a significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the actions of her grandmother’s, Mrs C’s care provider. This is because the concerns Ms B alleges are safeguarding matters and she can ask the Council to consider her complaint under its responsibility as lead Safeguarding Authority.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the care provided to her late mother, Mrs C, before she died. This is because the Coroner is investigating the cause of death and can decide whether the Council’s actions or omissions, or any for which it is responsible, led to or contributed to Mrs C’s death. We cannot do that, and there is no reason to change a decision we reached in 2017 not to investigate simply because Mrs C has died.

Summary: The Ombudsmen will not investigate this complaint as it is unlikely an investigation would lead to findings of fault.

Summary: Miss X complains on behalf of Mrs Y that Platinum Community Care Limited overcharged Mrs Y for care provision. Miss X complains the care provider sent two carers per visit when Mrs Y only required one. Miss X says this caused financial loss to Mrs Y. We have found fault by the care provider who has agreed to provide a remedy to address the injustice caused.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse his request for a disability adaptation to his rented property. We have found that Mr X was given inaccurate information about his landlord’s position causing confusion and frustration. To remedy the injustice caused by this fault, the Council has agreed to apologise in writing to Mr X. We have found no fault with the Council’s occupational therapy assessment.

Summary: Based on the evidence we have seen, we have not found fault in the way the Council assessed Ms C and Mr D’s finances and its decision to charge them a contribution towards the cost of their care. There was fault in the Council’s delay in deciding whether Ms C and Mr D could use their direct payment to pay family members to provide care. The Council has agreed to apologise, provide its decision and pay a financial remedy.

Summary: Miss X complained about the way Prime Life Limited (the care provider) treated her late father, Mr Y’s Funded Nursing Care (FNC) payments between September and November 2019. The care provider was at fault for failing to provide a clear contract or explain from the outset how it treats and handles FNC payments. This caused Miss X uncertainty. The care provider agreed to provide Mr Y’s estate with a partial refund of FNC payments it received. It also agreed to review and revise its contracts to make it clear how it treats and uses a resident’s FNC payments.

Summary: Miss X complained the Care Provider handled her mother, Mrs Z, roughly during a visit. Miss X also complained the Care Provider banned her and her family from visiting and then gave Mrs Z notice to leave the Care Home without proper reasons. We cannot come to a conclusion on whether Mrs Z was handled roughly. The Care Provider was not at fault for how it decided to ban Miss X. It was at fault for banning the rest of the family and for giving Mrs Z notice. It has agreed to apologise to Miss X and make sure it has a process in place for dealing with difficult relationships.

Summary: Mrs D complained the Council failed to consult her before it removed a phone she gave to her daughter. She also said its Social Worker bullied her. The Council made a decision it was entitled to make. And so, we cannot criticise its decision. There was no evidence of bullying, we cannot therefore make a finding on this matter.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s late complaint about the Council charging her mother, Mrs C for care she received in 2018. This is because Mrs B could have come to the Ombudsman sooner, if she was concerned Mrs C was being charged for care she was told would be free.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failures in dealing with her during 2018 and 2019 when a foster child was moving from children’s services to adults’ services. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to investigate it now.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s decision not to provide her with a dropped kerb and hardstanding to make accessing her car easier. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s decision to put her mother into respite care and the care quality she received once she moved. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has agreed to take proportionate action to remedy the injustice to Mrs X and her father.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council refused to increase residential care homes fee for the year from April 2019. Mr X has a legal remedy in court on a contractual dispute. He complains late about the decision on fees in 2019.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about access to her late mother’s care records. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is the appropriate body to consider her concerns.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not applying for CHC funding for the complainant’s mother in law, resulting in insufficient funds to cover her care, and the commencement of legal action against the complainant’s sister in law. This is because there is no evidence of fault regarding the Council’s decision not to apply for CHC funding, and the legal action is out of our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the complainant was unfairly banned from a day centre. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason why it could not have been made sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about events when he was in the Council’s care about 15 years ago. He could have approached us sooner and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to consider his late complaint.

Summary: Ther was fault in the way the Home assessed Miss C’s risk of falls, its care planning and its actions after Miss C suffered two falls. The Home also did not properly respond to Mrs B’s complaints. The Home has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and pay her £350.

Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it made a best interests decision to keep Mr X in a care home. The Council was at fault for the level of support it offered Mrs X in accessing the care home. As a result Mrs X could not regularly visit Mr X. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to provide suitable education to her daughter between 2015 and 2018. We have discontinued our investigation as the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise our discretion to investigate.

Summary: The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for not adequately explaining an assessed contribution towards the costs of a care home placement and for giving wrong calculations of the outstanding amount. This caused the complainant significant distress and confusion. The Ombudsman also finds fault with the Council for poor complaint handling. The Council has agreed to set up a payment plan for the amount agreed in its final decision and pay a financial remedy to the complainant in recognition of the distress caused.

Summary: Miss R complains on behalf of her mother, Mrs C, that the Council delayed arranging her permanent residential care placement. She also says it failed to respond to her queries and to agree changes to its deferred payment agreement. She says this caused injustice to Mrs C who was unsettled at the interim home and to the family who have spent two years attempting to move Mrs C causing distress and trouble. The Council was at fault for delay in moving Mrs C and for its failure to pay Mrs C’s care fees while it was in dispute with the family over a deferred payment agreement. This caused injustice to Mrs C, Ms R and Mrs S. The Council has agreed to pay them sums in recognition of the injustice caused. It has also agreed not to withhold payments to care homes in similar circumstances.

Summary: Ms C complained the homecare provider, commissioned by the Council, left her mother without support from her care workers for 18 hours. We decided to discontinue our investigation, because the injustice that Mrs M actually experienced was not sufficient to justify our continued involvement.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s actions over the years which negatively impacted on him and his mother. We will not investigate the complaint because the events complained about happened too long ago.

Summary: Mr B complained that the Council stopped his mother, Miss M’s, reablement care, contrary to Government guidance and a letter from the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG). The Council was entitled to end Miss M’s reablement care when she reached her reablement goals. However, the Council and CCG were at fault in communicating poorly with Miss M and Mr B. This caused them avoidable confusion and frustration. The Council and CCG accept our recommendations, so we have completed our investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsmen will not investigate this complaint as it is unlikely an investigation would lead to evidence based findings of fault leading to a personal injustice.

Summary: Mr B says a company providing adult social care support to his daughters on behalf of the Council, provided a poor service. Mr B says the Care Provider caused injury to one of his daughters and damage to his property. It has been very upsetting for Mr B and his wife. The Council has started a safeguarding investigation. To allow the Council the opportunity to complete this, and fully consider all issues and take any necessary action, we have discontinued investigation. If Mr B is not happy with the result of the Council’s investigation, he can make a new complaint to the Ombudsman.

Summary: Dr A has complained in relation to the care of her mother at a Care Home and the delay in a fast-track application for Continuing Healthcare funding. We do not find fault with the care provided or the delay in the application that caused Dr A the injustice has claimed.

Summary: Dr A has complained in relation to the care of her mother at a Care Home and the delay in a fast-track application for Continuing Healthcare funding. We do not find fault with the care provided or the delay in the application that caused Dr A the injustice has claimed.