Summary: Mr Y complains about the standard of care his mother received from domiciliary care providers commissioned by the Council. He also complains the Council did not apply the full 12-week property disregard when assessing his mother’s finances. The Ombudsman finds fault in the Council applying a 6-week property disregard and in the standard of care from the providers.

Summary: The Council failed to conduct a proper review of Mr D’s care and support plan. It did not gather information from his carer, it made changes to the support plan without considering all available evidence, and without a proper transition plan in place. This led Mr D to disengage and refuse support, so he was not formally receiving the support the Council assessed he needed. Ms C provided Mr D with informal support; the Council did not offer a carers' assessment to support her in this role. The Council delayed closing a safeguarding action against Ms C and delayed taking action to keep Mr D safe online. The Council’s failures lead to uncertainty about whether the situation might have been different if properly reviewed and any changes to support properly planned. Ms C has been anxious and has had time and trouble complaining. The Council will take the action detailed at the end of this statement, which involves apologies and payments to Ms C and Mr D, and reminders to relevant staff to improve service.

Summary: We upheld Mr X’s complaint about a safeguarding enquiry into his mother Mrs Y’s care. The Council has already apologised for the delay in investigating safeguarding concerns. It will make a symbolic payment to Mr X to reflect his avoidable distress.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about details of the end-of-life care provided to Mrs F in a nursing care home because it does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code. This is both because there is not enough evidence of serious injustice we could remedy, and because we could not achieve significantly more than the care provider has already provided in its response.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an error by the Council in collecting direct debt payments for its telephone alarm helpline service. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to lead to an outcome significantly different to that already provided by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council instigating a section 42 safeguarding enquiry. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the Council’s actions to warrant an Ombudsman investigation and further investigation could not add to the Council’s response or make a finding of the kind Mr B and Ms C want.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a financial assessment. Ms X should have informed the Council when her benefits increased. The Council followed its policy and procedures when it pursued the overpayment from Ms X. There in insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about her late grandmother’s, Mrs D’s Care Provider. This is because further investigation by the Ombudsman could not add to the Care Provider’s response or make a finding of the kind Ms B wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint, concerning the way the Council has administered her daughter’s Direct Payments. This is because an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council is discriminating against the complainant with its attempts to revoke the care services he receives. This is because we cannot investigate his complaint about any matters which have been the subject of the court action he started and it would not be appropriate for us to pursue his other complaints when an independent person is currently assessing his eligible care needs.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care provider. This is because the complainant does not have consent or standing to complain on behalf of the care provider’s residents.

Summary: Mr X complained about poor care provided to his late father, Mr Y, as part of a Council-commissioned care package. He also says the Council did not respond appropriately to his safeguarding alert. The Council was not at fault.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council was at fault in the way it arranged for her mother to move into a care home, carried out a financial assessment and provided information about care home fees. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters so have completed our investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complains the care provider failed to provide her with information about care home fees or a private residency contract when caring for her mother, so she unexpectedly received a large bill for care home fees. There is no evidence the actions of the care provider caused injustice to Mrs X and her mother, so we have completed our investigation.

Summary: Mrs C complained on behalf of her cousin, Ms B (who is deaf) about the actions of the Council in trying to set up a companion service to improve Ms B’s social isolation. We agreed with the Council’s conclusions that it was at fault and we also agreed with its proposals to put matters right, which include paying Ms B £500 for her distress and Mrs C £200 for her time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. The Council has also agreed to send Ms B a copy of its revised communications policy, place the policy on its website and to consider providing deaf awareness training to frontline staff.

Summary: Miss X complains Hanford Manor failed to look after her late father, Mr Y, properly when he stayed there in February 2021. She says this resulted in a rapid decline in his condition and poor infection control, which resulted in him catching COVID-19 from which he died. Hanford Manor failed to produce care plans for meeting Mr Y’s needs. Although this did not cause injustice to Mr Y, Hanford Manor needs to improve its working practices.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council’s care charging policy is discriminatory. She also complains the Council failed to properly consider her disability related expenditure during a financial assessment. We find fault with the Council for the delay in accepting her disability related expenditure. We also find fault with the delay in the Council completing its review of its care charging policy. We have made recommendations.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr B’s late complaint about Mrs C’s Care Provider. This is because we cannot investigate the actions of the District Nurse who administered Mrs C’s injection.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s late complaint about the way the Council considered his complaint about Mrs C’s Care Provider. This is because there is not enough evidence of the Council’s actions causing a significant injustice to either Mr B or Mrs C to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care fees when Ms Y moved to a different care home. There is no evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Moreover, any fault has not caused a significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the way the Council considered a safeguarding alert she raised regarding her late husband, Mr B. This is because the Council has apologised for any distress caused to her and we could not add to this or make a different finding even if we investigated. Sadly, Mr B is now deceased so we could not provide a remedy for any fault an investigation might now uncover.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about charitable gifts. This is because we cannot consider matters which are not in connection with the provision of care and support.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how much the Council charged the complainants mother for care it provided in 2017. This is because the events happened too long ago and there are no grounds to exercise discretion to consider them now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s mental health team contacting Ms X. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the care provided to the late Mr Y. She said the Care Provider commissioned by the Council did not provide adequate care and did not alert family to his situation. She also said neither the Council nor the Care Provider safeguarded Mr Y. She felt Mr Y was treated like rubbish and said family were devastated by the way he was living. We found the Council and Care Provider were not at fault in the way they dealt with Mr Y. However, the Council did not deal properly with Mrs X’s complaint. It has already taken some action and will ask for an upcoming review of safeguarding to consider its approach in this case.

Summary: Mr C complains the Care Provider failed to secure extra support for Mr D. The Care Provider is at fault for failing to assess and document whether Mr D needed one-to-one care. The Care Provider’s contract is also unclear about when it will provide extra care. As a result, Mr C has the uncertainty of not knowing whether the additional care was necessary and whether the time, trouble, and anxiety of securing another care provider was warranted. The Care Provider should pay Mr C £150, review its contract and remind staff about recording key information.

Summary: The Council already upheld some of Mr Z’s complaints about poor environmental standards at a care home it funded. It took appropriate action to remedy the injustice and so we made no further recommendations. There was no evidence Mr Y was unkempt and no evidence the family were misinformed about care being free. So we did not uphold these complaints.

Summary: Mrs X alleges neglect of her mother at a care home and also complains about the attitude of care home staff. There was fault with the recording of health matters involving Mrs X’s mother by the care home. However, the identified failings did not cause Mrs X’s mother an injustice that now warrants further pursuit of the complaint by the Ombudsman.

Summary: Mrs D complains about the way she was treated by a care home whilst her late mother, Mrs F, was resident there. She also complains the home did not enable her to see her mother when she was at the end of her life. I have discontinued my investigation. This is because it is out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as Mrs F’s care was funded by the NHS.

Summary: Ms D complains about the Council’s withdrawal of direct payments in 2015 and a care assessment in 2020. I do not intend to investigate matters dating back to 2015 as they are too long ago to be properly considered. There is no fault in the Council’s actions in 2020, it could not complete a care assessment because Ms D disengaged.

Summary: We upheld complaints about the standard of Mrs X’s care in a council-funded care home. We also upheld complaints about serving notice. The fault caused Mrs X and her family avoidable distress. The council will apologise and take action described in this statement to minimise the risk of recurrence.

Summary: Mrs B complains the Council did not ensure her father, Mr C, received an adequate level of support with his medications and care. She says he often missed medications, which contributed to incidents of confusion and incontinence. She says carers falsely signed medication records. The Ombudsman finds fault in the care provided, in a lack of oversight and assessment of Mr C’s care needs, and the lack of investigation into allegations around medication recording.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her mother, Mrs F with appropriate financial support when she failed to pay her assessed care fee contributions between 2016 and 2020 which led to arrears of over £34,000. The Council was at fault when it failed to deal with Mrs F’s debt in line with its debt policy. However, this did not cause Mrs F an injustice because she received the care and support and was fully aware the debt was accruing and of her requirement to make her assessed contributions.

Summary: Ms Y complained care staff left her partner, Mr X, with urine in his bottle, faeces on both a sponge in the sink and on a towel in the bedroom on 31 January 2020. Ms Y complained about the care Mr X received and about the failure to respond to her complaints. Ms Y says this impacted Mr X’s mental health and her relationship with Mr X. The Ombudsman does not find fault, causing a significant personal injustice to Mr X or Ms Y, with the care provided or completion of Care Plan reviews. The Ombudsman does find fault with how the Council managed and responded to Ms Y’s complaints. The Council agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendation to apologise to Ms Y and Mr X and provides each with a payment of £100 to reflect the frustration, distress, inconvenience caused.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council investigated a safeguarding concern regarding her adult son Mr Y’s college. The Council was at fault as the Local Authority Designated Officer wrongly considered the concern when Mr Y is an adult. This did not cause a significant injustice to Mr Y as the college investigated the concern and put procedures in place to prevent a recurrence. The Council has also taken action to prevent this happening again. The Council was at fault when it provided Mrs X with misleading and confusing advice and delayed dealing with her complaint. It has agreed to make a payment to acknowledge the frustration this caused her.

Summary: It was not fault for the Council to require use of a pre-paid card as a way of enabling Mr and Mrs X to manage their daughters’ Direct Payment accounts more efficiently. The Council has a duty to ensure the proper management of public funds.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s financial assessment of her late mother, Mrs Y. She said it did not properly consider the £25,000 gift she gave Mrs X and wrongly decided she had done this to avoid paying for care. Mrs X would like the Council to reconsider its decision. We found the Council was not at fault in the way it considered Mrs Y’s finances or in the way it dealt with Mrs X’s complaint about this.

Summary: Mr D complains the Council relayed unfounded concerns to the Office of the Public Guardian about his capacity to care for his wife and act as her lasting power of attorney. He also complains the Council failed to address poor time keeping by carers or investigate allegations he was rude to care staff. At this stage, we found the Council was at fault for failing to address the punctuality of care staff. This caused Mr D distress and uncertainty so we have recommended a number of remedies. There is no evidence to suggest any other fault by the Council. Further, we have no jurisdiction to investigate concerns raised about Mr D’s lasting power of attorney. This is because these matters were considered by the court of protection.

Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her son, Mr Y, about the Council’s actions in placing a neighbour inappropriately and dealing with their behaviour. The neighbour’s behaviour caused Mr Y significant distress and caused a significant risk to his health and wellbeing. We found the Council was not at fault in the way it dealt with this.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charge for its emergency on call service. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Ms X to warrant it.