Summary: Mr X complained the Council charged him for care he was not aware he was going to be charged for. He said the Council continued to charge him even after he asked it to significantly reduce the amount of care provided because he did not want it, and the carers could not use the inadequate equipment. He said he was surprised and distressed to receive a large bill for care he did not ask for. We find the Council at fault. This fault caused Mr X injustice. The Council has apologised to Mr X. The Council has agreed to write off some of his outstanding bill, make a payment to Mr X to reflect the injustice caused, and make improvements to its service to avoid this happening in future.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s refusal to disregard the late Mr Y’s property although she lived there with her partner. She says she will be made homeless if they force her to sell the property to pay Mr Y’s care costs. We found the Council was not at fault.

Summary: Mr B complains that the Council overcharged his late mother for her domiciliary and residential care. The Ombudsman considers that there were errors in the financial assessment for Mr B’s mother’s residential care and, as a result, she should have been charged more for her care. The Ombudsman considers the Council agreeing to write off the additional charges is a suitable remedy.

Summary: The evidence shows the Council undertook a carer’s assessment in line with the Care Act in 2016. Since 2017 Mrs X has lived in residential care so no further carer’s assessment was appropriate.

Summary: Mr B says the Council charged his parents for care they did not receive and which the Council had said they would not be charged for. There is no fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complains about the care his late mother, Mrs Y, received in the Council’s care home, Mapleton Road, in December 2020. There is no evidence Mapleton Road failed to meet Mrs Y’s care needs.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council delayed in sending invoices for her mother’s contribution towards her care home charges, leading her to receive a large invoice she did not expect. This is because an investigation by this office could not add to the explanation and responses already provided via the Council’s previous investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse Disability Related Expenditure, Mrs B says it should include in her son’s, Mr D’s, financial assessment. This is because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider’s staff or missing items which belonged to the complainant’s mother. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation and it is unlikely we could add anything to the response the complainant has already received.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging a top-up fee. This is because it is unlikely we will find evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council. Mrs B could have complained in 2016 if she did not agree to paying a top up. There is no good reason to exercise discretion and investigate this late complaint now.

Summary: Miss A complains the Council failed to safeguard her from financial abuse. Miss A also complains about the mental capacity assessment and how the Council handled the decisions about her accommodation, which resulted in her living with her family instead of her own accommodation. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to act in a timely manner in safeguarding Miss A. The Ombudsman also finds fault with the Council for how it considered Miss A’s housing needs. This caused Miss A significant distress. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council for how it conducted the mental capacity assessment. The Council has agreed to pay a financial remedy and consider service improvements.

Summary: The Care Provider accepts there were errors in the administration of Mrs Y’s medication. I am satisfied the Care Provider took appropriate action to deal with the matter before the complaint came to this office. There is no outstanding injustice that requires a remedy from this office.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision not to issue him a blue badge. He also said this decision discriminated against him as a disabled person. There was no fault in how the Council considered Mr X’s blue badge application. It also had due regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010 when considering Mr X’s blue badge application.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the care the complainants husband received in his care home between 2016 and early 2020. This is because the events happened too long ago and I see no good reason to exercise discretion and investigate them now.

Summary: The Council was at fault for the way it decided not to disregard Mr X’s property when calculating his care costs. This means Mr X’s family cannot be sure his care costs are correct and whether entering into a deferred payment agreement with the Council is necessary. To remedy the injustice caused the Council has agreed to apologise and re-consider whether Mr X qualifies for a property disregard.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care charges because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. In addition, part of the complaint is late.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a request for a copy of a safeguarding report. This is because the Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with such matters. We cannot deal with the complaint about practices at a hospital because we do not have jurisdiction to investigate the NHS.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the failure of the Council to fit electronic fire doors in the building where Mrs X lives. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mr B complained about the way his relative, Mr C, was discharged from psychiatric liaison services on two occasions over one weekend. We found no fault by the Council, Livewell Southwest or the Trust.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council was at fault in the way it financially assessed her uncle, Mr Y for contributions towards care home fees. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council carried out a financial assessment on Mr Y, notified Ms X of the charges and pursued her for unpaid contributions as Mr Y’s attorney. So we have completed our investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council changed and suspended his son, Mr Y’s, direct payments during 2020 without adequate communication or explanation. The Council was at fault for failing to pay Mr Y’s respite payment since 2020 despite it being an assessed care and support need. The Council agreed to apologise and pay Mr X a total of £500 to recognise the frustration, uncertainty, time and trouble and loss of opportunity that caused. It agreed to reinstate the respite payment. An administrative error also meant Mr Y did not receive his direct payment during October 2020. The Council has already apologised to Mr X and paid the missing amount which is a suitable remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council incorrectly invoicing Mr X for care services or delays in responding to his complaint. This is because the Council has already apologised and cancelled the charges and there is nothing further we could achieve from an investigation of the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to fund care. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation and any investigation will not lead to a different outcome

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint from Miss X and Mrs Y about charges for domiciliary care arranged for their late father. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code which we use to decide which complaints to investigate. The complaint is late and could have been brought to the Ombudsman much sooner.

Summary: Miss X complained about problems with specialist equipment provided by the Council and NHS Clinical Commissioning Group. We have not upheld the complaint. We have now completed our investigation.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to properly assess her need for care or meet her needs. Ms X also complained the Council delayed referring her homelessness application to other local authorities. The Council was not at fault regarding referring her homelessness application to other authorities. It was at fault for reducing Ms X’s care package without reviewing her care plan and delay in allocating her a social worker. This caused Ms X avoidable distress. The Council will apologise and remind its staff they must carry out a review before reducing someone’s care package.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council delayed in reviewing Ms Y’s care plan following an increase in the hourly rate of her care provider. The Council is at fault as it delayed in carrying out a review of Ms X’s care plan and making a decision on whether to increase its direct payment rates. As a result Ms Y did not receive sufficient care for over three years which caused significant distress to her. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising and making a payment of £1000.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to ensure it had effective monitoring processes in place in relation to his daughter, Miss D’s, supported living placement and also delayed in responding to his complaint. The Council has already accepted there was a need to improve monitoring and has taken appropriate steps to address this. The Council took too long to respond to Mr X’s complaint. It has already apologised for this which is suitable to remedy the frustration this caused Mr X. It has also agreed to provide evidence that the outstanding work to the communal room has been completed and it has raised the issue of unacceptable delays with the Landlord.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council handled her disabled facilities grant application. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: Mrs D complained on behalf of her daughter the Council failed to take proactive action when a day care service provider failed to renew the lease of a venue it was using. We do not find the Council was at fault.

Summary: Mr B complains the Council stopped his direct payments and is refusing to reinstate them. He also complains about the care and support plan the Council drafted. The Ombudsman has found some fault with the way the Council dealt with the direct payment. And its communications after setting it up. But the Council has decided not to seek recovery of payments made to Mr B. With an apology for other faults we have found, this is a suitable remedy.

Summary: Miss C said The Evergreen Care Trust was at fault for ending a contract with her without reason and for charging her for a service she did not receive. Evergreen Care Trust was at fault for terminating Miss C’s contract without allowing her to comment on allegations made against her by staff members. This caused Miss C injustice because she was distressed. Evergreen Care Trust has already apologised for that fault and waived a month’s fees. No further remedy is required. Evergreen did not charge Miss C for a service she did not receive.

Summary: Mr B complained the Council wrongly and repeatedly sent invoices to his mother, Mrs C, for care charges she did not owe, leading her to take her own life. We uphold the complaint, with the Council having acknowledged that it wrongly failed to identify Mrs C’s case as one that should have benefitted from funding it received during the COVID-19 pandemic. While we cannot say the invoices led Mrs C to take her own life we find they caused her unnecessary distress. Mr B was caused distress in turn. The Council accepts these findings and at the end of this statement we set out the action it has agreed to take to remedy his injustice.

Summary: The complainant, Mr C lives in a care home. Some items of his clothing went missing. There was fault by the care provider in how it responded to the complaints.

Summary: Ms X complains about the care her mother, Mrs Y, received at The Burlington, a care home run by Boutique Care Shepperton Ltd. She says this resulted in having to move her mother and paying for two care homes. The Burlington’s actions contributed to the breakdown in relations between it and Mrs Y’s family. It also failed to deal properly with a proposed move to another part of the home. This caused unnecessary distress and resulted in Mrs Y paying for two care home placements. The Care Provider has offered to refund the duplicated care home costs. It also needs to apologise to Ms X and pay her financial redress.

Summary: The Care Provider is at fault for failing to support Mr D with dignity and respect, manage his urostomy bag correctly, protect his property, and respond to complaints effectively. The Care Provider has apologised for some of the faults identified and made some procedural changes. The Care Provider has also agreed to pay £400 to the complainants to acknowledge their personal injustice, provide staff training, and review procedures to prevent a recurrence of the failings.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council tricked him into signing a form for his mother, Mrs Y, without explaining what it was. That is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to an application for a Disabled Facilities Grant for an adapted bathroom. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decisions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider’s contingency plans should the lift in one of its care homes not be available. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and it is unlikely we could add anything to the response the complainant has already received.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care Mr Y received in a care home. That is because there is insufficient evidence Mr Y has been caused an injustice and any injustice caused is not significant enough to warrant further investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s communication with the complainant regarding payment of a deferred payment agreement account and delayed removal of the charge on his mother’s property. This is because it is unlikely we would now add to the Council’s investigation or achieve a significantly different outcome for him.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the respite care provided to his later father, Mr Y. This is because we cannot provide Mr Y with a remedy for any fault an investigation might uncover, and it is unlikely we could add to the care provider’s response.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care and support Mrs D received from her Care Provider. Further investigation could not add to the Care Provider’s responses or make a different finding of the kind Ms B wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about standards of care at a residential home. Our involvement could not provide a meaningful remedy and the Information Commissioner is best placed to help Mrs X access records about Mr X’s respite stay.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about lack of end-of-life care being provided to Mrs C. This is because further investigation by the Ombudsman could not add to the care provider’s responses or make a different finding.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about equipment a council occupational therapist placed in the complainant’s parents’ home. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is not unreasonable to expect the complainant to take the matter to court.

Summary: Mr E has complained about the mental health and social care of his sister, Mrs F, by the Council and Trust. We find fault with the mental health and social care of Mrs F but not with her mental health assessment or the Trust’s complaint handling. The Trust and Council agreed to apologise to Mr E and take action to prevent similar problems in the future.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council delayed in completing a financial assessment in respect of her mothers’ contribution towards the cost of her residential care. As a result, Mrs Y continued to pay private fees for longer than necessary. We have found the Council to be at fault. To remedy the injustice caused the Council has agreed to apologise, refund the overpaid fees and make a payment to recognise the distress and time and trouble caused to Mrs X.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with safeguarding concerns about her son. This is because she is not a suitable person to complain on behalf of her son. There is no fault in the Council not allowing Miss X to attend the safeguarding meeting. The Council has also apologised for the delay in sending Miss X the outcome of the safeguarding meeting and this is a suitable remedy.