Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council failed to properly advise her of a change in the way it assessed her mother's (Mrs C's) finances which resulted in Mrs C becoming responsible for her full care costs. She also complained the Council met with Mrs C to discuss her finances without Mrs B being present and persuaded Mrs C to sign a deferred payment agreement (DPA).

Summary: The Council has delayed meeting Ms C’s adult social care needs, and Mr B’s needs as a carer. The Council’s communication has been poor. Mr B supports Ms C, but this has a negative impact on their relationship, causing stress and anxiety. Mr B has had time and trouble chasing the Council for information and clarity and feels unsupported. The Council will apologise, make acknowledgement payments to Mr B and Ms C, complete Ms C’s care and support review or reassessment without further delay, and remind staff of the importance of clear communication and chasing referrals.

Summary: Mr X complained about some aspects of the homecare Mr P received by a care provider who had been arranged by the Council. I upheld Mr X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to provide a partial refund of the fees Mr P paid for his care and apologise to Mr X for any distress he has suffered. The Council will also share the lessons learned with relevant staff.

Summary: Durham County Council correctly charged Mr A for his social care support when his circumstances changed. Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust missed the opportunity to reassess Mr A’s section 117 aftercare needs after that time. That fault caused Mr A uncertainty. The Trust should apologise to Mr A and reassess his section 117 aftercare needs.

Summary: Mr C complained about the way the Council dealt with matters in relation to the financial assessment of his (late) uncle’s residential care placement. I found fault with the long time it took the Council to complete the financial assessment, for which the Council has agreed to apologise.

Summary: Mr X the complainant, complained the Council did not properly consider his late mother’s needs when assessing her for a move to a care home resulting in falls in her home. The Council said it had to follow deprivation of liberty procedures because the client said she did not want to move. We found the Council at fault, and it has agreed to apologise, pay Mr X £250, and review its procedures.

Summary: The Council’s assessment of whether garden maintenance charges should be allowed as a disability related expenditure was at fault as it was not clear if the Council had adequately considered the extent of maintenance needed. Reassessing the expenditure and backdating any changes remedies any financial injustice. There was no fault in the Council’s consideration of other expenditure or its financial assessment.

Summary: The Council failed to fully consider Mr C’s challenge to the adult social care financial assessment which determined he should pay around £57 per week. The Council may be fettering its discretion by saying it will not take household maintenance costs into account and has not evidenced it has considered any impact on Mr C’s wellbeing, despite it being a key principle of the Care Act 2014. This leaves Mr C with uncertainty about whether the Council has made the right decision or whether it should waive the charge in full or in part. The Council should apologise for this and review its decision about Mr C’s financial contribution.

Summary: Ms D complained the Council did not properly investigate safeguarding concerns about her mother, Ms C, and the care she was receiving from an independent care agency. Ms D says this caused her anxiety, stress and depression. We found no fault with the Council.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not properly support her and her family when her late husband was discharged from hospital. There was no fault by the Council.

Summary: The investigation will be discontinued. The Council adequality investigated Mr X’s complaint about the training given to a carer attending his mother. A suitable remedy has been proposed.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council charging her late father, Mr C a contribution towards his care costs. This is because the Council’s actions have not caused Mr C a significant enough injustice to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs S’s complaint about her mother’s, Mrs T’s, Care Provider leaving the windows open causing bees to enter the property. This is because we could not make this finding. Neither Mrs S or Mrs T have been caused a significant enough injustice because of the actions of the Care Provider to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about care provided to her late mother, Mrs C. This is because further investigation by the Ombudsman could not add to the Council’s response or make a finding of the kind Mrs B wants. Mrs C is now deceased so we cannot provide a remedy to her for any injustice caused by fault an investigation might uncover.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about data protection breaches. This is because the complaint is about matters best considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: Mr X complained on his own, and on Ms Y’s behalf about the way the Council has dealt with matters relating to her supported living placement. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation into the complaint. This is because, while issues about Ms Y’s capacity are being considered by the Court, we are unable to find Mr X has her consent or authority to bring her complaint to us and we cannot achieve a worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

Summary: Miss X complained about the care provided to her late mother by the Council commissioned care home. The care provider was at fault as it failed to seek prompt medical attention, delayed completing food and fluid charts and failed to properly complete elimination charts. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and make a payment to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty caused to her by the care provider’s faults. It has agreed to ensure the care provider takes action to prevent a recurrence of the faults.

Summary: The Council was not at fault in the way it retrospectively charged his aunt, Mrs A, for her residential care after she was discharged from hospital under the government COVID-19 hospital discharge service requirements.

Summary: There was no fault in Mrs Y’s nutritional care in a nursing home arranged by a council. There was also no fault in the social worker completing an assessment remotely. The social worker liaised with health professionals as part of the assessment and this was in line with Care and Support Statutory Guidance. So we did not uphold Mr X’s complaints.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s EHC planning and the decision made not to send him to his preferred college. He says the Council did not involve him in the decision, did not give him a clear explanation as to how it made the decision, or how to appeal the decision. We find some fault and have made recommendations.

Summary: I have found no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Mrs Y’s domiciliary care package

Summary: We stopped investigating Mr X’s complaint about his mother Mrs Y’s home care because there is no injustice to Mrs Y.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to give the complainant a Blue Badge. This is because the Council has offered to do a face-to-face mobility assessment.

Summary: We find fault in the Council’s investigation of the safeguarding concerns raised by Mrs Y. This is because the Council cannot demonstrate what evidence it considered when reaching its decision. The Council will apologise to Mrs Y and provide evidence to the Ombudsman of the remedial action undertaken by the care provider since the conclusion of the safeguarding investigation.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to deal properly with the reopening of day services following the first COVID-19 lockdown, resulting in his daughter’s (Ms Y’s) care needs not being fully met. The Council delayed in organising the reopening of day centres, causing avoidable distress to Ms Y and leaving her parents meeting most of her care needs for too long. The Council needs to apologise and pay financial redress.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council refused to consider her complaint about her care act assessment and personal budget from 2017. The Council accepted it had not properly considered Ms X’s reasons for not complaining sooner and that she had good reasons. That was fault. The Council has agreed to investigate Ms X’s complaint and to remind staff about properly considering late complaints. We consider this a suitable remedy.

Summary: Mrs X says her husband received neglectful treatment while staying at a care home. We will not investigate the complaint at this stage because while Mrs X has exhausted the complaints procedure with the care provider, Mrs X has also complained about the safeguarding enquiry carried out by the Council and the Council has not yet had the opportunity to respond to this part of the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant does not qualify for a Blue Badge, freedom pass or a taxi card. This is because the Council has agreed to do a face-to-face mobility assessment.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider’s decision not to give the complainant a refund. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Care Provider and because the complainant could take action in the small claims court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care services provided to Mrs X. This is because the events complained of occurred more than 12 months ago.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a disabled persons freedom pass. This is because the Council has renewed the pass.

Summary: Mr P complains the Council has taken far too long to increase his personal expenses allowance, causing unnecessary distress. The Council was at fault for giving Mr P confusing information, after the appeal about charges. Its offer to apologise was a suitable remedy for consequential distress. The Council’s offer to waive all the charges up to 19 December 2020 is enough to remedy any injustice caused to Mr P by the delay in completing the appeal.