Summary: There is no evidence the care provider unnecessarily put in place additional care without agreement or failed to provide a good standard of care. There were some minor concerns about carers’ actions and the care provider apologised for these. The actions of the care provider did not cause injustice to Mr and Mrs X.

Summary: The Care Provider failed to seek authorisation from Mrs X before disposing of two chairs belonging to her uncle.

Summary: Ms C complained the Council delayed providing a care plan for her brother, Mr D. She also says the Council arranged a placement for Mr D without reading the family history. We find the Council was at fault as it delayed authorising Mr D’s care plan and it did not consult with all family members when deciding on a placement for Mr D. It has also delayed reviewing Mr D’s care plan and placement. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council left her mother, Mrs Y, in residential care for too long, resulting in her paying too much for her care. The length of time Mrs Y spent in residential care was due to COVID-19, not fault by the Council. However, the Council failed to assess Mrs Y’s finances properly. It therefore needs to reconsider its decision on the extent to which she deprived herself of capital.

Summary: Miss B complains on behalf of her partner who has health and care needs (Mr W). She says the quality of the care provided by the Council’s third party care provider has been poor. Further, Miss B says care staff were inappropriate and her complaints led the care provider to unfairly give notice for the care to be terminated. We found the care provided failed to provide an adequate level of care. The Council is ultimately responsible for the provision of care and so we consider it was at fault. This caused Mr W an injustice and so we have recommended a number of remedies.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the end-of-life care provided to the complainant’s mother (Mrs Y). Further investigation by the Ombudsman would be unlikely to add anything to the Care Provider’s response or make a different finding. Sadly, Mrs Y has passed away, so we could not provide her with a remedy even if we investigated and found evidence of fault causing injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s careline service. The Council has admitted it was at fault and has offered a suitable remedy. We could not add to its investigation and our involvement would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about his father’s, Mr C’s Care Provider. This is because further investigation by the Ombudsman could not add to the Care Provider’s response or make a different finding.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council is not allowing her to have unsupervised contact with her adult daughter and that it said it would apply to the Court of Protection to resolve this and it has not done so. There was no fault in the way the Council reached a best interests decision that Mrs X’s contact with her daughter should be supervised. The Council failed to approach the Court of Protection despite repeatedly saying it would do so and this was fault. The Council has agreed to write to Mrs X to apologise for the frustration this caused, confirm the contact arrangements with her daughter, review these and if Mrs X remains dissatisfied to approach the Court of Protection.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to provide transport to his son’s day centre, sent a reminder for an invoice it had not sent and expected his son to pay for services he did not receive because of COVID-19. He says this left his son without support and his parents with no respite. The Council accepts it failed to provide transport and sent a reminder for an invoice it had not sent, and has apologised. It was also at fault for failing to discuss the options for using his son’s direct payments. This prevented Mr X from making informed decisions about using them. The Council needs to apologise, pay financial redress and provide evidence of the action it has taken to ensure it does not send reminders for invoices it has not sent.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint which alleged it unfairly raised the contribution the complainant’s uncle makes towards the cost of his care.

Summary: Mr X says the Council charged his late father for palliative care even though he was told the Council would not charge for the care. Mr X also says his father was charged for periods when he returned home from hospital and should have received charge free care under the reablement programme. No further action is needed as the issue is not one the Ombudsman can deal with.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council which acted in line with government guidance when it refused Ms X a blue badge.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council incorrectly stopped paying her direct payments. The Council has accepted it was at fault. It has agreed to backdate the payments owed and pay Mrs X £250 to acknowledge the avoidable distress caused by this. There is nothing we could achieve from further investigation therefore we will not investigate this complaint.

Summary: Miss X complains her father’s care home failed to take appropriate action when he fell ill. The Council has accepted care records from time were inadequate. It has agreed to write to the family to apologise and pay £1000 to acknowledge the distress and time and trouble they have been caused by this. There is nothing further we could achieve from an investigation and so we will not investigate this complaint.

Summary: Mrs X says a care plan drawn up by a care provider did not address her friend’s complex needs and he did not receive the service from the care provider even though he was charged for it. There was fault by the Council because it identified a need for her friend to be dealt with by a complex needs team but did not act on it. The Council agreed to waive outstanding charges and offer a partial refund of payments made by Mrs X’s friend.

Summary: The complainant complained the Council failed to include in her late mother’s financial assessment the valuation it had placed on her home resulting in her being liable for the full costs of her residential care. The complainant says the Council failed to seek an independent valuation as provided for under the Care Act 2014. The Council said it followed the correct procedure, considered the likely value of the property on the open market and this was not challenged for several years. We found the Council acted without fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a carer. This is because the alleged harassment and stalking by a carer is best dealt with by the Police. And we have no remit to consider the carer’s employment with the care company.

Summary: Ms C complained about the lack of support she and her son received from the Council, which she says resulted in distress to them. We found there was some fault in the way in which the Council supported Ms C and her son, for which the Council has agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy.

Summary: There was fault in the way the Home communicated with Mrs B and provided her with updates. The Home has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and pay her a small sum to reflect the distress caused.

Summary: Mr C complained on behalf of his son, D. Mr C complained about the way the Council carried out its financial assessment and decreased D’s allowances. We found fault with the Council. The Council agreed actions to remedy the injustice to D.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to deal properly with the family’s request for a discretionary 12-week property disregard for her mother-in-law. The Council failed to explain the reasons for not granting a discretionary 12-week property disregard. This creates doubt over whether it made the right decision. To remove that doubt, the Council needs to reconsider its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about poor quality of care in a care home before Mrs Y’s death. The Council has carried out a Serious Incident Practice Review and it will share its report with Mrs X when it is completed. It is unlikely our involvement would add to the Council’s investigation or lead to a different outcome at this time.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the way he has been treated by his partner’s, Ms C’s, Care Provider’s. This is because the injustice Mr B claims is not as a result of the actions of the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the alleged actions of a Council officer in 2020. The complaint was made late, and there is not a good reason Mr X did not complain to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint, made on behalf of Mrs X, about Mrs X’s residential care. The care provider has offered a remedy for the matters complained of which is in line with the remedy we would have recommended had we investigated. We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint about the care provider’s complaint-handling process because we are not investigating the core issue which gave rise to the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to Mr X’s father’s finances. This is because it is a late complaint and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information Mrs X was given by the Care Provider about why she could not visit her father at his care home. The Care Provider has accepted it gave Mrs X wrong information and there is nothing further we could achieve from an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to register Mrs X as her former foster daughter’s nearest relative. This is because this is a late complaint and there is no good reason for us to investigate now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council’s adult social care service has ignored the complainant’s concerns about her brother. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and we could not add to what the Council has told her.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the care and support his late father, Mr C received from his Care Provider. This is because further investigation could not add to the Council’s response or make a finding of the kind Mr B wants.

Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council was being unreasonable in asking her to pay back over £6000 arrears of charges for her daughter’s respite care. She did not realise she had to inform the Council of a change in her daughter’s income because the household income remained at the same level. We have not found fault with the actions of the Council.

Summary: Z complained the Council failed to adequately assess their care and support needs and this left them without the care and support they required. The Council was not at fault in the way it assessed Z’s needs.

Summary: Mr C says the care provider did not provide the full support he was paying for, so it should refund at least one of the care calls. We cannot conclude this was the case so have not recommended any refund. The Care Provider will apologise for failing to tell Mr C in advance that a care worker would be visiting to collect the care records after the service ended. The unannounced visit caused Mr C distress and anxiety. The Care Provider will also apologise for Mr C’s frustration caused by its failure to respond to part of his complaint.

Summary: Mr B complained that the Council stopped his education incentive payment without notice or explanation on two occasions and refused to backdate the money to cover the gaps. The Council has now offered to pay him £500, support him until the end of his course and review its policies. We are satisfied this is a reasonable and proportionate way of resolving the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider moving Mrs Y to a first-floor room during renovations. The complaint is late, and there is not a good reason Mrs X did not complain sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful Blue Badge application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to safeguard a vulnerable adult. The complaint is late and there is not a good reason Mrs X did not complain to us sooner. There are also other bodies better placed to deal with the concerns she raised.

Summary: We found fault by Hill Care 3 Ltd as it failed to maintain accurate and complete nutritional records for Mr B, an elderly man at risk of malnutrition. We also found fault by the Trust as staff failed to inform Mr B’s family that his dentures were broken. Hill Care 3 Ltd and the Trust will apologise for this fault. We found no fault by the Council in terms of the care it provided to Mr B.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint regarding the outcome of an assessment for adult social care. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the decision was made by the Council.