Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide enough support for Mr Y during the COVID-19 pandemic, leaving her to meet all his needs for several months and unable to work. The Council did not respond promptly or constructively to all Mrs X’s requests for support. This left her struggling to meet all Mr Y’s needs. The Council needs to apologise and pay financial redress.

Summary: The Council has said that it will not pursue outstanding care charges, which remedies any financial injustice. The complaint was discontinued as further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr B says the Care Provider failed to properly investigate or explain what caused his father’s fall and unreasonably charged him for the extra care required following the fall when the fall was the Care Provider’s fault. There is no fault in the Care Provider’s investigation or in its decision to charge for additional care.

Summary: Mrs C complains that her late mother’s jewellery went missing from the nursing home she lived in before her death. The Care Provider did a satisfactory investigation but could not find the missing jewellery. We cannot establish liability for its loss, so have found no fault with the Care Provider.

Summary: Mrs X complains for her mother Mrs Y, the Council failed to safeguard Mrs Y when she raised concerns about her health and finances. We are discontinuing our investigation into the complaint as it has not been made by a suitable person.

Summary: Miss X complains that carers would not attempt CPR on her mother, Mrs Y, when she was found unresponsive because there was a DNACPR in place. Miss X had to call 999 and perform CPR herself which she found very distressing. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely we would identify fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council managed care home fees for the complainants mother. This is because some of the issues raised happened too long ago and there is no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with more recent matters.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council refusing him a Direct Payment so he can purchase his own care. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: There is no fault by the Council. The assessment of the complainant’s contribution to care fees took much longer than usual. But this was not due to any fault by the Council. The Council completed a safeguarding investigation based on the information it had. Again, this was not fault by it.

Summary: Mrs A complains the Council delaying arranging a payment plan for her mother’s care fees. This caused her distress and uncertainty during a difficult period, and meant her mother accumulated a large debt. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for delaying arranging a payment plan, and for failing to carry out the actions agreed in the complaint response. This caused Mrs A further distress and delayed resolving the complaint.

Summary: Mr Z has made a complaint on behalf of his mother who is in residential care (Mrs X). Mr Z says the Council failed to explore all of Mrs X’s eligible care options following a stay in hospital. He says Mrs X then made a decision to self-fund her care in a residential care home on the basis of misinformation and procedural failings by the Council. We identified the Council failed to discuss all the care options with Mrs X. However, the Council quickly remedied the failing and we do not consider that Mrs X has suffered an injustice by reason of the fault. We did not identify any other failings by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the delay in discharging Mr Z from a care home. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion and investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider’s investigation into an incident between service users, or its decision to exclude Miss Y from its services. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to accept it now.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s safeguarding investigation into her concerns about her daughter, Ms C, being bullied. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. It would be reasonable for Mrs B to ask the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to consider her complaint about the Council sharing data she believes it should not have shared.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s care needs. The complaint relates back to events that took place in 2018. We will not consider complaints about matters that the complainant was aware over 12 months ago. It was reasonable for Mrs Y to complain to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about what happened when Mr X’s mother suffered a fall outside the care home where she lives. This is because the Care Provider has offered a suitable remedy and accepted fault and there is nothing further we could achieve from investigating this complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a fall her husband, Mr X suffered in 2019. We should not consider matters relating to events that took place more than 12 months ago. It was reasonable for Mrs X to bring the complaint to us sooner.

Summary: Mr B complained about the domiciliary care provided to his mother. He also complained the Care Provider failed to provide access its care notes system, pursued him for additional costs after the contract was agreed and signed and inadequately responded to the concerns he raised about sub-standard carer performance. We find that Mr B and Ms C suffered an injustice. The Care Provider has agreed to our recommendations to address this injustice.

Summary: Mrs X, on behalf of her mother Mrs Y, complained about the delay in setting up a deferred payment arrangement and the Council’s failure to make payments to the care home as agreed. The Council gave unclear information about when it would progress the application for the deferred payment arrangement, failed to pay the care home as agreed, delayed in responding to Mrs X’s complaint and failed to review the payment issues within the timescale stated. A suitable remedy for the injustice caused by these faults is agreed.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the residential care received by the complainant’s mother and the way his complaint was handled. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is unlikely an investigation would add anything to the response the complainant has already received. It is not a good use of our resources to investigate complaint handling as a standalone issue.

Summary: The Council was at fault for the way it handled Mr X’s concerns about communication difficulties he faced when trying to contact Mrs Y at her care home. This caused injustice as Mr X was not able to speak to Mrs Y as often as he wanted in the final months of her life. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X and have the care home review its communication facilities.

Summary: The Council’s failure to deal properly with Mr X’s application for a Disabled Facilities Grant caused avoidable delays of 32 months. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment to Mr X, and take action to improve its services.

Summary: There was fault by the care provider, PhemaCare Limited, Birmingham, commissioned by the Council to provide care on its behalf. The Council’s care provider failed to respond properly to Mr and Mrs B’s complaints. This caused Mr and Mrs B distress and frustration at a time when Mr B was vulnerable and recovering from serious illness. The care provider should apologise to Mr and Mrs B, and the Council should work with it to implement its complaints policy properly.

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mr Y’s complaint because he has been aware of the Council’s intention to seek repayment of his mother’s care and support costs since 2019 and two years before he approached the Ombudsman. The matters complained about happened too long ago for us to investigate and there is no good reason for us to exercise our discretion.

Summary: The Council failed to properly consider Ms Y’s disability related expenditure. It acknowledges its failings and has agreed to complete a fresh financial assessment and backdate the expenditure to the date Ms X raised it with the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s control of the complainant’s finances. This is because the matter has been decided in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care fees. This is because the complaint relates to events which happened more than 12 months ago. We cannot consider late complaints. It was reasonable to expect Ms X to come to us sooner.

Summary: The complainant, Miss B, complained about the thoroughness of the Council’s safeguarding investigation when her late father was discharged from hospital to a care home in December 2019. We found no fault in the way the Council substantiated the allegation of neglect against the care home during its safeguarding investigation. We did find fault in the way the Council decided Miss B’s father’s discharge from hospital was in line with the relevant law and guidance as the decision was not evidenced. The Council has agreed to our recommendations and will consider this specific point in line with its safeguarding procedures. It will write to Miss B to apologise and include her in the process. It will also remind its officers of the importance of ensuring safeguarding decisions are evidence based.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a dispute regarding the care the complainant’s father received and the Council seeking payment of an outstanding balance. That is because the complaint is late and there are not enough good reasons for us to investigate it now.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs C’s complaint about the care provided to her late mother, Mrs D. Further investigation by the Ombudsman could not add to the Care Provider’s response or make a different finding. Sadly, Mrs D has since died so we could not provide her with a remedy even if we investigated and found evidence of fault.

Summary: the care provider acted in accordance with the contract terms and its actions did not cause injustice to Mrs A.

Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council decided Mrs Y should be discharged from hospital to a care home during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the Council was at fault for a delay in the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards process, a lack of clear advice about what action to take relating to Mrs Y’s housing association tenancy when she went into residential care, and a failure to properly record how it considered a disposal of capital amounted to a deprivation of assets. It should apologise and pay Mr X, who was handling Mrs Y’s affairs, £200 for the uncertainty caused, and review its processes.

Summary: The Council accepted it was at fault for not reviewing Mr Y’s care and support plan earlier given that his support services stopped due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It will apologise, refund the contributions Mr Y paid to the cost of his care in that period and waive the invoices that remain outstanding. It will also pay Mr X £200 for his time and trouble pursuing the matter on Mr X’s behalf.

Summary: Mrs C complains the Council’s charging assessment for residential care is wrong. The Council is at fault for failing to consider motivation when concluding there was a deprivation of assets. This has caused uncertainty about whether the assessed charge is correct. The Council has agreed to apologise to the complainant, reassess the charge taking into account motivation, and remind staff of the need to consider motivation in decisions of this type.

Summary: The Ombudsmen find there was a failing by a Trust when it was planning a mental health patient’s discharge from hospital. This failing caused avoidable stress to the patient’s relative. The Ombudsmen recommend an apology to address this injustice.

Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s response to Ms X’s request for a downstairs toilet.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the domiciliary care the complainant’s husband received. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is unlikely we could add anything to the response the complainant has already received.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council was charging them a top up for care home fees which they never agreed to and could not afford. The Council was at fault. It failed to discuss or agree the top up arrangement when the care home placement became permanent and failed to review the placement when Mr and Mrs X said they could not afford to pay. The Council has agreed to pay the top ups, apologise to Mr and Mrs X and pay them £150 to acknowledge the distress this caused. It has also agreed to provide evidence it has carried out service improvements to prevent a recurrence of the faults.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the actions of her personal assistant during a shopping trip. This is because an investigation by this office could not add to the response already provided via the Council’s investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about disputed charges for his father-in-law’s domiciliary care package. This is because the Council has already provided a suitable remedy and there is nothing further we would add to this. We will not investigate the issues Mr X raised following the Council’s final response to his complaint because they have not yet been considered via the Council’s complaints procedure.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to ensure the complainant’s father received the correct care. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council’s decision-makers reached their decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Blue Badge renewal because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to his complaint. We do not have consent to investigate parts of his complaint and other parts of the complaint are late. We will not investigate the way a Council responded to a complaint where we are not investigating the substantive issues and there are no public interest reasons to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about quality of works carried out under the Disabled Facilities Grant scheme. This is because the Council has already provided a suitable remedy and there is nothing further we could achieve.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that a council officer lied in court and the living arrangements for the complainant’s son. This is because the complaint is about matters considered and decided in court. It is therefore outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: Mr B complained the Council completed a financial assessment for his mother, Mrs C when she lacked capacity and failed to consider that he had applied to the Court of Protection. Mr B also says the Council should have included Mrs C’s rental obligations in her financial assessment. There was no fault in how the Council handled the financial assessment or how it reached its decision on Mrs C’s rental obligations.

Summary: The Council’s service to the family during an adult safeguarding investigation failed with delays and communication errors. The Council failed to meet expectations when it arranged a meeting and then cancelled it and refused any further meeting. The Council will apologise and make a payment to acknowledge the upset, time, and trouble its actions caused.

Summary: There was fault by the Council and the care provider acting on its behalf because it failed to do enough to protect Mr Y from financial abuse. There was not fault in how the Council made sure Mr Y’s care needs are met, or in how it helped him choose his current accommodation. The Council is not responsible for the consequences of theft, but its failure to adequately protect Mr Y has caused him and his family distress. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr Y and his family and pay £500 to him in recognition of the distress it has caused.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council improperly carried out adaptations he needed to safely walk around in his garden. He said the Council’s actions have caused him inconvenience. There was no fault in the Council’s management of the adaptations.

Summary: Mrs B complained about the Council’s assessment of her needs, consideration of her disability related expenditure and issuing an invoice for backdated charges. The Council’s assessment of Mrs B’s needs and decision to issue a backdated invoice was not affected by fault. The Council considered the majority of Mrs B’s disability related expenditure properly but did not properly consider her request for additional petrol and laundry costs. An apology to Mrs B and arrangement for a further appeal panel to consider those two issues is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council wrongly invoicing Mr C’s sister for his late mother’s, Mrs B’s, care. This is because the Council has acknowledged its failings in this case, reimbursed money Mrs B should not have paid, apologised to Mr C and his sister, and offered him £500 for the time and trouble he has incurred in pursuing his complaint. We could achieve no more than this if we investigated and are satisfied the injustice caused by the fault has been remedied.

Summary: The evidence does not show the actions of the care provider caused injustice to the late Mr X. The cause of Mr X’s death has already been established by the coroner and it is not the role of the Ombudsman to question that.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s lack of support to Mr B. This is because further investigation by the Ombudsman could not add to the Council’s response or make a different finding.

Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council tried to assist Mr B in finding alternative care providers to deliver his care package and in the way it decided the personal budget during that time.

Summary: Miss Y complains about the Council failing to investigate properly her report that a care home manager murdered her late mother (Mrs X). She also raises concerns about errors in the minutes of the safeguarding meetings. We will not investigate because we are unlikely to be able to add anything more to the Council’s safeguarding, complaints, and data protection investigations. Further, the Information Commissioner is the most suitable agency to deal with Miss Y’s concerns about inaccurate records. And we cannot achieve the outcomes requested of compensation for negligence in Mrs X’s care and harm caused to Miss Y.

Summary: Ms X complained about the outcome of the Council’s safeguarding enquiry about concerns she raised regarding carers from the care provider who delivered her home care. Ms X alleged a carer stole money from her and another failed to tell the Council’s safeguarding team when they witnessed her fall. There was no fault in how the Council carried out its safeguarding investigation. It did not substantiate the allegation of theft and there was no evidence a carer witnessed Ms X fall. Further investigation by us would unlikely lead to a different outcome.

Summary: The Council has commissioned an independent social worker to review Ms A’s records and needs. This investigation will be discontinued therefore as I cannot say what difference the previous assessments made to the current situation until the results of the review are known.

Summary: The Council acknowledges it did not follow its usual process in seeking to resolve Mr X’s problems with his previous domiciliary care provider. Mr X now has a new care provider giving a satisfactory service, the Council has improved its processes and offered a proportionate sum to Mr X and his family in recognition of the distress caused. That is a suitable remedy for the injustice suffered and I have completed the investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care Mrs Y’s sister received at a residential care home. The Court of Protection is the body best placed to consider Mrs Y’s sister’s best interests and we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs Y is looking for.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council encouraged her to have a second disabled facilities grant (DFG) on the basis this would repay her for costs incurred repairing damage to her property caused by the first DFG, but it failed to do this leaving her out-of-pocket. After its first response to Mrs X’s complaint, the Council failed to make its position clear and failed to respond to some of her correspondence. This left Mrs X unable to make informed decisions about the work she was unhappy with. The Council needs to apologise and pay financial redress.

Summary: Ms C complains the Care Provider failed to support her mother properly and gave notice in retaliation to her complaints. The Care Provider failed to record actions which has caused uncertainty about what care it provided and when. There is no fault in the way the Care Provider issued notice, it followed its contract. To improve future practice, and remedy Ms C’s and Mrs D’s personal injustice, it should remind staff about the importance of recording, make a payment, and apologise to Ms C and Mrs D.

Summary: Mr B complained the Council delayed in carrying out an adult social care assessment of his needs. And when it was done it did not accurately reflect his needs or provide the necessary support. He said this meant he did not have support for his physical needs and also with his housing situation. There was fault by the Council in how it responded when Mr B first approached. It will apologise and make a payment to him. It will also review its procedures.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about aftercare funding for the late Mrs X. This is because as we are satisfied with the actions the Council proposes to take.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that he should not have to pay a contribution towards his care costs. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s personal information. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is the body best placed to deal with data protection issues.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms X’s father’s care. This is because she has already started court proceedings about this matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged data breach by the Council. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is the correct body to investigate this matter. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to take her complaint to this body.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr C’s care charges. This is because we could not provide a remedy for any fault an investigation might uncover as Mr C is now deceased.

Summary: Mr B has a disability and had difficulty in using his adapted bathroom. There was fault as the Council failed to properly progress its assessments of Mr B’s bathroom to determine his need for a further adaption. This caused unnecessary delay. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and pay him £400.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council commissioned care provider made unfounded allegations about her mother Mrs Y’s behaviour, carried out short visits and the Council failed to reduce Mrs Y’s care package from two care workers to one care worker per visit. The Council was at fault. It failed to discuss the allegations with Ms X and Mrs Y and failed to properly respond to her complaint about this. The care provider also failed to properly document all its concerns in the care records. This caused Ms X frustration and distress and meant Mrs Y paid for double handed care longer than necessary. There was no fault in the care provider’s decision not to agree to single handed care or in the length of care visits. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms Y and pay her £500 to acknowledge the extra care she paid for. It has also agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £150 to acknowledge the frustration caused. It has agreed to take action to prevent a recurrence of the faults in future.

Summary: Mr R says the Council failed to ensure that a contract was in place with his late mother, Mrs C’s, care home for two months in 2019. He says he and Mrs C suffered injustice as the nursing home threatened her with eviction and him with legal action. He says this caused injustice as he spent time and trouble dealing with the matter. The Council was not at fault. It communicated with Mr R and informed him about its actions and his options for funding Mrs C’s care.

Summary: Mrs C complains about the Council’s refusal of a blue badge renewal. The Council was at fault for the way in which it processed a blue badge application. The Council has agreed to review its procedures, pay Mrs C £250 and complete an assessment for a blue badge.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about conduct of staff. This is because we do not have jurisdiction to consider personnel matters. Further investigation could not add to the Care Provider’s response, and we are satisfied with the actions taken by the Care Provider.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a social worker and the right to erasure request of their report. This is because the Information Commissioners Office and Social Work England would be best placed to consider Mrs X’s complaints and we cannot achieve the outcome she is looking for.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an application for a Blue Badge because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about missing items which belonged to the complainant’s deceased mother. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is unlikely we could add to the response the complainant has already received. It is also reasonable for them to make a claim against the care provider’s insurance or to pursue the matter in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care Mr B’s late mother, Mrs C received from her Care Provider. This is because further investigation could not add to the Care Provider’s response. We could not provide a remedy to Mrs C from any fault an investigation might uncover as she is now deceased.

Summary: Mrs Y complains the Council decided her mother deliberately deprived herself of assets to avoid paying care fees. It treated the value of her former home as notional capital. Mrs Y says the transfer of her mother’s home was not to avoid paying care fees the Council has provided no evidence that it was. The Ombudsman finds fault in how the Council made its decision.