Summary: Adverse findings notice issued because Foxley Lodge Care Ltd failed to provide the remedy recommended by the Ombudsman following an investigation. 

Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council provided respite care under a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard authorisation for Mr X.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed setting up direct payments for her mother, Mrs M, following a needs assessment and failed to show the budget was sufficient to meet Mrs M’s needs. The Council was at fault. It delayed arranging the direct payments and failed to review the personal budget when it reviewed Mrs M’s care needs. The Council has agreed to review and backdate the personal budget, apologise to Mrs X and pay her £250 to acknowledge the time and trouble and frustration caused. It has also agreed to review its processes.

Summary: The Council failed to ensure the late Mrs X and her family were properly informed of the financial implications of her move into assisted accommodation and failed to reassess her needs once she moved. It failed to properly consider her mental capacity to make a decision about her finances. The Council will now apologise to Mrs X’s family for the distress and frustration caused by its faults, waive the care charges and offer a sum in recognition of the distress.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has failed to consider a discretionary property disregard for her mother’s property after Mrs X’s daughter turned 18 and has failed to progress a deferred payment agreement, leaving her mother paying for all her care and her daughter at risk of losing her home. The Council failed to give proper consideration to a discretionary property disregard but has now corrected that error. It is not at fault over the deferred payment agreement, as Mrs X has not accepted one for her mother.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council commissioned care provider failed to take action when his mother got a pressure sore. The care provider was at fault as it failed to follow its procedures. There was no fault in the way the Council carried out a safeguarding investigation into Mr X’s concerns although there was an error in the letter it sent to Mr X and it delayed responding to Mr X’s complaint. The remedy the Council has offered Mrs Y and Mr X through its complaints’ procedure is appropriate. In addition, it has agreed to pay Mr X £100 to acknowledge the frustration caused by the delay in its complaints process.

Summary: Mrs C complained the Council failed to put her mother on the NHS Continuing Health Care (CHC) Fast Track Pathway. As a result, her mother had to pay for her nursing home care, rather than it being free of charge. We found fault, because there were missed opportunities to refer Mrs C’s mother for a CHA reassessment. The Council has greed to apologise and pay a remedy for Mrs C’s distress.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint about its dealings with the complainant over a disabled facilities grant.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not carry out a financial assessment or provide her with sufficient financial advice when her late husband, Mr X, moved into a residential care home in July 2018. This meant she used his life insurance money to pay for his care fees. There was no fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions regarding reasonable adjustments provided to Mr B by the Council acting in its role as landlord or its decision to provide him with a single point of contact. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault with the Council’s decision to provide Mr B with a single point of contact.

Summary: Kingston Upon Hull City Council, Molescroft Nursing Home Limited and Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited all acted with fault when supporting Mrs B. Those faults include personal care, unfairly charging a top-up, best interest decision making, safeguarding investigations, and complaint handling. Those faults had an emotional and financial impact on Mrs B’s son, Mr A.

Summary: Mrs F complains on behalf of her mother that a Council-funded care home failed to allow her to visit her late father when he was at the end of his life during the COVID-19 pandemic. We have found fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs F’s mother.

Summary: The Ombudsmen found there was fault by a Council in its communication about accommodation costs. However, the Council has already acknowledged this and offered and a financial remedy. We consider this provides a reasonable and proportionate outcome to remedy the injustice caused by the failings.

Summary: The Ombudsmen found there was fault by a Council in its communication about accommodation costs. However, the Council has already acknowledged this and offered and a financial remedy. We consider this provides a reasonable and proportionate outcome to remedy the injustice caused by the failings.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her with clear information about how to access Council support to pay her mother’s care home fees, whilst she awaited court-appointed deputyship enabling her to access her mother’s finances. The Council was not at fault.

Summary: Mr D complained the Council has failed to ensure the support it provides for his sister-in-law, Mrs E, is appropriate for getting her back to living independently. He also complained the Council is shutting out him and his wife from information about Mrs E’s care. We have not investigated Mr D’s concerns about the support the Council is providing to Mrs E. Mrs E has not provided her consent for us to investigate the complaint and we do not consider Mr D is a suitable representative. There was no fault in the Council not sharing information about Mrs E’s care with Mr D and his wife.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that a care home will not allow the complainant to have contact with his wife. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the care home.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council has supported her. We find the Council was not at fault.

Summary: We found fault with the way a Council and NHS Trust handled the discharge planning process for Mr Y after his admission to hospital in April 2019. The Council and Trust agreed to apologise to Mr Y’s daughter and pay a financial sum in recognition of the distress this caused her. They will also review relevant policies and procedures to prevent similar problems occurring in future. We found no fault by another NHS Trust that cared for Mr Y during later hospital admissions in July 2019 and April 2020. Similarly, we found no fault by a GP Practice that provided care to Mr Y in the community.

Summary: Mrs E complains about the Council’s demand that she pay £40,805.15 for her late husband’s care home charges, and about the lack of advice provided to her. The Ombudsman considers the Council was wrong to seek to recover this sum, did not advise her properly about her husband’s Personal Expenses Allowance or carry out annual reviews of her husband’s care. The Council has agreed to cancel the £40,805.15 care home charge, apologise to her, pay her £1,120 in recognition of the distress caused and costs unnecessarily incurred, and review its procedures.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s refusal to obtain an independent valuation of jointly owned property when assessing his contribution towards residential care home fees. We find the Council was at fault for not doing so. The Council has already agreed to arrange a valuation. The Council has also agreed to apologise for not doing so sooner.

Summary: Mr X complains that Ave Maria Care Ltd failed to advise his mother, Mrs Y or her family about an increase in the hourly rate for her care. Mr X states Mrs Y did not enter into a contract with Ave Maria Care Ltd and the signature on the contract is not Mrs Y’s. The Care Provider’s failure to ensure Mrs Y was aware of and understood the cost of her care amounts to fault. This fault has caused Mrs Y an injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care and residence for the complainant’s father. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions where they affect the complainant, and she is not a Suitable Representative for her father as his interests in the matter she raises are to be considered at a Best Interests Meeting.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council assessed the needs of a person living in the same building as the complainant’s partner. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate as the complainant has not suffered any personal injustice.

Summary: The care provider did not provide good enough care and treatment to the late Mr X while he was resident at the care home. It failed to provide food in a way he could easily consume it and failed to administer medications properly in accordance with its own assessment. The care provider will review the way it monitors food intake and the action it takes on the results. It will apologise to Mr X’s family and offer a payment in part waiver of its fees and in recognition of the distress its failings caused.

Summary: there is no evidence the Council failed to consider and respond properly to Ms A’s complaints about the operation of her father’s alarm system.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s approach to pursuing Ms Y for payment of a debt owed by the late Mrs Z for her care. Ms Y said this caused her significant stress, upset, time and trouble and the debt was not due. We found the Council was not at fault.

Summary: Miss B complained on behalf of her late grandmother. She said the Council did not respond appropriately when the family asked for assistance with care and support. She believed that as a result Mrs X remained at home without the support she needed, had a fall which led to her admission to hospital. There was fault which caused injustice to Mrs X and the rest of the family. The Council will apologise and make a payment.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council did not ensure Ms Y understood the charging process and did not follow suitable safeguarding measures. This meant Ms Y accumulated a debt of over £4,000 for her care. Mrs X believes the Council should waive the debt. We found no fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of her mother’s, Mrs C’s care needs. This is because the Council’s actions have not caused Ms B or Mrs C a significant enough injustice to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint on behalf of his late cousin, Ms C. This is because some of the issues Mr B complains of have previously been considered and decided by the Ombudsman. Ms C could have come to us sooner, and, we cannot provide a remedy to a person for any fault an investigation might uncover, who is now deceased.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs C’s complaint about the contact she had with her late mother’s, Mrs E’s, care provider and difficulties in arranging to visit her. This is because further investigation could not add to the care provider’s response or make a different finding of the kind Mrs C wants.

Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Council in this complaint. The Council properly assessed Mr X’s needs and completed necessary adaption works to allow him to access the front and rear of his property. The Council also arranged to re-hang the rear door, but Mr X declined the offer.

Summary: Mr C considers that the Council was wrong to treat spending from his late father’s bank account as deprivation of assets, and that it should contribute towards the cost of his residential care. The Ombudsman has found fault because the Council did not take into account the reasons that Mr C put forward for the spending. The Council should carry out a new assessment taking proper account of the reasons Mr C puts forward. It should also ensure that officers are familiar with the relevant guidance on deprivation of assets.

Summary: We have not found fault in the occupational therapist’s and the Council’s housing team’s support of Ms B. However, there was a substantial delay in the Council’s assessment of Ms B’s needs for care and support, its care plan and its provision of support. This meant that Ms B was without care and support for a long time. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms B and pay her £1,000 for the distress and lack of service during that time.

Summary: The Council reduced Ms X’s support package without proper consideration of her needs. It fettered its discretion in deciding to refuse some elements of support and unlawfully applied a blanket policy in the allocation of domestic support hours.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council decided his mother deliberately deprived herself of assets to avoid paying for care charges. Mr X says his mother decided to provide this gift years before knowing she would need care. Mr X also said his mother did not have capacity to decide the gift would be deprivation of assets when she made the gift. Mr X says he has had to settle outstanding care charges with the Council for his mother’s care and these charges continue to accrue. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council’s decision.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to meet her mother’s needs when she left hospital in March 2020. The Council was at fault for failing to provide an enhanced package of care when Mrs X’s mother returned home in March 2020. It needs to apologise to Mrs X for the avoidable distress this caused and pay financial redress.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council’s care provider, Villa Scalabrini, failed to follow Government guidance on using lateral flow tests to facilitate visits to his mother, causing avoidable distress to them both. There is no evidence of fault over this matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of care at a care home, and the care home’s actions when the complainant’s mother became seriously ill. This is because we are unlikely to be able to add anything to the Council’s previous investigation or provide a different outcome.

Summary: It was not fault on the part of the Council not to apply the property disregard for Mr X from the date when he became a permanent resident in the care home. Mr X arranged and funded his own placement in the care home and did not ask the Council for assistance until later.