Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council assessed her mother’s needs for homecare support. Ms X says this resulted in distress and a delay in her mother’s discharge. We found fault with the way in which the Council responded when Ms X and the care home raised concerns about the proposed support at home. The Council has agreed to apologise for this.

Summary: The Council was at fault when Mr X’s Care Provider withdrew his home care package with no notice when it decided he and his wife may have COVID-19. The Council was also at fault for delaying in sourcing another care package for Mr X. It has agreed to pay Mr and Mrs X £250 to remedy the injustice this caused them and provide evidence it has reminded staff of the importance of sourcing alternative care as a contingency if an existing care package breaks down.

Summary: Mrs C complained about several aspects of the care support her father received at the care home he was living. Mrs C said these resulted in distress to her father and herself. We found there were some shortcomings with regards to the support Mr F received. As such, the care provider has agreed to apologise to Mrs C and her father and pay Mr F £500 for any distress he experienced.

Summary: Ms C complains the Care Provider (acting on behalf of the Council) withdrew a care package from her mother in retaliation to complaints. There is no evidence to suggest this was the case. However inappropriate comments made by the Care Provider and failures in the complaint handling caused Ms C upset. In addition to the apologies and service improvements already made, the Council has agreed to pay Ms C £250 in acknowledgement of the stress caused by the failures.

Summary: Ms X says her mother died in hospital because of poor care she received in a care home. There were admitted failings in the care Ms X’s mother received at the care home. But Ms X’s mother’s death cannot be attributed to poor care at the home through this investigation. Ms X or her mother did not suffer a degree of injustice in consequence of the identified failings that now warrants a remedy or further pursuit of this complaint by the Ombudsman.

Summary: Mr C complained about the way the Council, and the care provider it commissioned, responded to a deterioration of his son’s behaviour, which resulted in increasing incidents. We found the Council was at fault for a delay in its response, for which it has agreed to apologise to Mr C and his son. It has also agreed to review the way in which it prioritises and allocates new cases to its assessors.

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his deceased mother, Mrs Y about the standard of care provided by Fairways Care Home and about an investigation completed after she fell. We find the Care Home delayed in responding after Mrs Y activated her sensor mat. That has caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty of how long his mother was on the floor after she fell and may have caused an injustice to Mrs X. Care Plus Group has already made recommendations for service improvements following the fall, it has also agreed to apologise to Mr X for the avoidable uncertainty caused.

Summary: Ms B complained about the actions taken by the Council’s alarm call service when responding to her mother (Mrs D) after she had fallen. We have not found fault with the Council.

Summary: Mr C complained his wife did not receive a financial remedy when he complained she had to stay with her mother for three days because the care provider, commissioned by the Council, stopped her care support with immediate effect. We upheld Mr C’s complained, following which the Council agreed to provide the financial remedy we recommended for Mrs C.

Summary: Ms X complained staff at a care home where her father lived did not contact her when he died. There was no fault because staff contacted another family member.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council tried to change the placement on her son’s EHCP without consultation or agreement. This is because an investigation by this office could not add to the response and explanation already provided by the Council’s response on this matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care the Council provided to Mrs X’s mother after she suffered a fall. This is because the Council has agreed to provide a co-ordinated response to Mrs X’s complaint with the relevant NHS Trust and there is nothing further an investigation could achieve at this point.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Ms X’s brother. This is because Ms X does not have legal authority to act as her brother’s representative.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that the Council did not properly assess her father, Mr C’s, social care needs, and did not record his condition accurately. This is because Mrs B’s complaint is late and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to the desired outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the emergency alarm service he received between 2015 and 2019. It lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and I see no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider this very late complaint now.

Summary: Mrs D complains about the quality of the home care she received from a provider acting on behalf of the Council. The Ombudsman upholds the complaint, as there are some instances of poor communications with Mrs D and inadequate record keeping. The Council has agreed to our recommendation of an apology and payment for distress. But we cannot recommend that the Council waive all the fees, which is what Mrs D asked for.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly arrange the transfer of care when he moved to a different area. There was fault in how the Council failed to refer Mr X to his new council when it knew he would be moving. This caused Mr X avoidable distress and frustration for which the Council agreed to apologise and pay Mr X a financial remedy.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council managed his late brother, Mr Y’s, finances while it was his court appointed deputy. There was fault in how the Council identified and reported a change of Mr Y’s circumstances which affected Mr Y’s benefits. The Council has offered a suitable remedy for the resulting losses to Mr Y and the distress caused to Mr X, and has reviewed similar cases of others. It also agreed to review how it manages the benefits of people it acts as deputy for.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that Mr X has not received care in his current accommodation. This is because the Council does not commission care for Mr X, and he does not have care arrangements in place with any private care provider. All issues Mr X alleges are about tenancy matters with a social housing landlord and these are matters for the Housing Ombudsman Service.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision not to proceed with a safeguarding investigation about historical and ongoing abuse and related matters, including disability discrimination and failure to provide support for his autism. We do not find fault with how the Council considered the safeguarding request and we are satisfied with the Council’s approach to Mr X’s care and support needs.

Summary: Miss B complains about the way the Council considered her application for a hard standing and dropped kerb. Miss B says she needs parking next to her house due to her medical conditions. She says the Council was unprofessional and did not properly assess her application. The Ombudsman finds fault in the Council’s policy and how it considered Miss B’s request.

Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to provide him with suitable support to meet his care needs since May 2020. As a result, he said he experienced distress due to the lack of support. We found the Council was not at fault. This is because it provided interventions and care based on the information Mr B provided.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the expiry date of the complainant’s Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about her late mother’s, Mrs C’s, Care Provider. This is because there is not enough unremedied injustice from the Care Provider’s actions to warrant an ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the actions of her mother’s, Mrs D’s, Care Provider. This is because we could not achieve the outcome Mrs B wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to properly communicate care fees. This is because the Council has already provided a suitable remedy and there is nothing further we could achieve.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to provide an accommodation provider with evidence it could act on behalf of a tenant. This is because the Council has now agreed to take action to a suitable remedy and there is nothing further we could achieve by investigating this complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to properly investigate safeguarding concerns Mr X raised about his mother. This is because Mr X is not a suitable representative to complain on his mother’s behalf and seek changes to her care.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider’s refusal to share information with Mr X about his father. This is because the Information Commissioners Office would be best placed to consider Mr X’s complaint and we cannot achieve the outcome he is looking for.

Summary: There is no fault in the Council’s decision to stop Mr Y’s direct payments and seek repayment of unauthorised spends. However, it failed to offer Mr Y a commissioned service to meet his assessed needs.

Summary: Mr K complained about the Council’s handling of his father’s care funding. He said it took the Council four months to tell him the outcome of the care assessment. As a result, he said he experienced financial loss as the Council asked him to pay the care charges. He also said this caused him and his father distress. We found the Council at fault for failing to carry out its responsibilities under the Government’s COVID-19 Hospital Discharge Guidance. It has agreed to pay Mr K the difference in his father’s care home costs and apologise for the distress it caused Mr K and his father.

Summary: We upheld Ms X’s complaints about a failure to arrange a timely assessment to enable Mrs Y to have an appropriate care package so she could go home from hospital and about poor care (missed medication). Mrs Y has passed away and so it is not appropriate to recommend a remedy for her. The Council will apologise to Ms X for her avoidable distress.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council reduced the support provided to her son, Mr Y, on his care plan without involving him in 2019. There was fault in how the Council reduced Mr Y’s care and support without notice and delays in arranging his direct payments in late 2020. It agreed to apologise to Mr Y and Mrs X, and pay them both financial remedies. It also agreed to review the training it provides to social workers about direct payments.

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his father, Mr Y, when the Council decided he could remain at home with support. Mr Y said he was not safe and wanted him to move to a care home. We found the Council was not at fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint that they were given wrong information about paying for her father’s, Mr D’s, care. This is because we are satisfied with the remedy implemented by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mrs X’s mother whilst she was alive. This is because she is not a suitable person to bring a complaint on her mother’s behalf.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage caused to Mr X’s kitchen by a carer. This is because the complaint has been made late and also because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to take his claim for damage and personal injury to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about allegations made by carers about Mr X’s behaviour when they provided domiciliary care to his wife. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: Mr C complained the Council failed to carry out an appropriate care review in November 2019 and failed to carry out any review in February 2020, as it had promised. As a result, he said the amount of support the Council allocated for his mother was not enough to meet her needs. We found there was fault in how the Council managed the case, which caused some injustice, for which the Council has agreed to apologise.

Summary: Adverse Findings Notice issued because Care 1st Ltd failed to provide the remedy recommended by the Ombudsman following an investigation.