Summary: Ms C complained the Council has failed to arrange a care support package for her since July 2020. She says this resulted in significant distress, inconvenience and impacted her health, including her mental health. We have found fault with the Council not being able to find a care agency to support her, for which the Council has agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy.

Summary: We found fault by a care home acting on behalf of the Council regarding the care it provided to Mr X, an elderly man with complex care needs. We found the care home failed to support Mr X and his wife, Mrs X, to make an informed choice about his GP registration. We also found the care home failed to administer palliative medication to Mr X as prescribed. In addition, we found fault by the Practice as it failed to discuss Mr X’s end of life management plan with Mrs X. These failings caused Mrs X distress. The Council and Practice will apologise for this fault and take action to prevent similar problems occurring in future.

Summary: We found fault by a care home acting on behalf of the Council regarding the care it provided to Mr X, an elderly man with complex care needs. We found the care home failed to support Mr X and his wife, Mrs X, to make an informed choice about his GP registration. We also found the care home failed to administer palliative medication to Mr X as prescribed. In addition, we found fault by the Practice as it failed to discuss Mr X’s end of life management plan with Mrs X. These failings caused Mrs X distress. The Council and Practice will apologise for this fault and take action to prevent similar problems occurring in future.

Summary: There was fault as the Home failed to monitor the call bell response times and failed to provide appropriate records relating to two falls Mrs C suffered. The Home gave contradictory explanations on how one of the falls occurred. The records also say that Mrs C’s call bell and mat were unplugged on one occasion. The Council which commissioned the Home has agreed to apologise to Mrs C’s son and pay a financial remedy.

Summary: Mrs X complained the care provider, Peel House Nursing Home unfairly and inappropriately increased her mother, Mrs F’s care fees during 2021. The care provider was at fault. The terms in its contracts relating to fee increases are not in line with Competition and Markets Authority guidance which means it is likely they are unfair under consumer law. It also failed to issue Mrs F with a contract and did not provide Mrs X with an adequate explanation of how it calculated the care fees. The care provider agreed to apologise and pay Mrs X £300 to recognise the frustration, uncertainty and time and trouble the faults caused her. It also agreed to review its contract to ensure it complies with the CMA guidance and consumer law.

Summary: Mr B says the Council failed to follow through with an occupational therapy assessment it agreed to carry out six months after the first visit and failed to involve him in the later visits. There is no evidence the Council agreed to carry out a further visit after six months but the Council accepts Mr B should have been involved in the later visits. That did not result in Mr B’s mother missing out on any provision but led to Mr B having to go to time and trouble to pursue the complaint. An apology and payment to Mr B is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: A Care Home Association complained about the way the Council and the CCG dealt with its complaint made on behalf of its members. We did not found fault in the way the Council and the CCG considered the complaint from the Association.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to fix a specially adapted toilet in his home after a care worker broke it several months ago. He said this situation has caused him stress and inconvenience. there was fault in the Council’s failure to source a plumber to visit Mr X’s property within a timely manner. Mr X did not find the plumber suitable to carry out the work and so there is no significant injustice.

Summary: Mrs B says the care home commissioned by the Council neglected and abused her mother and, in investigating those concerns, the Council failed to properly consider the evidence. The Council failed to consider all parts of the referral but there is no fault affecting its decision that there was insufficient evidence of neglect in this case. A reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: We found no fault by the Council and Bornel Care with regards to the care they provided to Mr C, a young man with complex needs.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed in replacing Ms Y’s washing machine and completing plumbing repairs to her home. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant further investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to apply a discretionary disregard to his mother’s Mrs D’s property. 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 Mrs X’s complaint about her care charge contributions. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its backdating decision to justify us investigating.

Summary: Ms X complained about the care provided to her father, Mr Y, and the way the Council dealt with her complaints about that. She said this caused significant distress. We find the Council at fault. It has agreed to reimburse Mr Y 50% of his contribution to his care and pay Ms X £600. It has also agreed to take action to avoid similar problems in future.

Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the treatment of Mr A by the commissioned care provider, or the way in which the Council conducted the safeguarding enquiry.

Summary: Ms X complained about the standard of care provided to her brother, Mr T over forty days in summer 2021 by Kirstens Care Ltd. There was fault in Kirstens Care’s record keeping and complaint handling which caused Ms X uncertainty about the level of care received by Mr T and frustration. Kirstens Care Ltd agreed to apologise to Ms X for the frustration and uncertainty and to make service changes to prevent a reoccurrence of events.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not properly discuss his care package with him, delayed contacting him about his financial assessment, sent letters to the wrong address and failed to discuss with him how he could address the arrears which accrued. The Council was at fault when it failed to clarify consent with Mr X, did not keep him updated about his hospital discharge and sent his financial information to the wrong address. There was no fault in the way it calculated his contribution to his care charges. The Council properly investigated Mr X’s complaint and has taken action to address the faults it identified. It has agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £250 to acknowledge the distress sand frustration caused by the faults.

Summary: Mrs H has complained the Council has not awarded her with a Blue Badge despite her disabilities. We have found no evidence of fault by the Council in how it considered Mrs H’s application. This is because the evidence suggests the Council properly considered the eligibility requirements and supporting guidance governing the assessment for issuing a Blue Badge. Absent a finding of fault, we cannot by law question the merits of the Council’s decision to refuse a Blue Badge. That said, the Council has offered to undertake a further review of Mrs H’s application. Further investigation would not lead to a different or improved outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council delayed in finalising her brother’s care and support plan. That is because the Council has now finalised his plan and agreed to pay Miss X £200, for the avoidable uncertainty and distress caused by the delay. Therefore, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr Y’s domiciliary care. We could not achieve a meaningful remedy, and the courts are better placed to deal with claims for compensation.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council has not provided him with adequate help and support to deal with his care needs. We find the Council was at fault as it failed to pursue an independent assessment to determine if Mr X needed more support. It also did not have an effective process in place to monitor his support hours. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: The Council was not at fault for failing to provide care to Mr X nor for its decision to cancel his care package.

Summary: Ms X complained about the care her late mother, Mrs Y, received at the Council commissioned Care Home. The Care Provider was at fault. There were errors in how staff at its Care Home communicated information about Mrs Y’s care amongst each other and with other healthcare professionals and with how staff recorded information about her care. A safeguarding investigation identified faults by the Care Home. The Care Provider recognised the faults and put measures in place to improve its service. The Council has agreed it will apologise to Ms X and make a symbolic payment of £150 to acknowledge the distress and frustration the faults caused her. The Council will also provide evidence to show the Care Provider has actioned the lessons it learned.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient fault with how an Occupational Therapy assessment was concluded. We also cannot investigate complaints about councils acting in their capacity as social housing landlords, nor can we investigate the actions of the NHS.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to compensate him for paying his mother’s care costs when he had difficulty accessing her savings. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council and an investigation by this office could not add to the response already provided via the Council’s previous investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s general complaint about care homes applying automatic annual fee increases without clear justification. This is because this matter has not caused Mr X a significant personal injustice. Where this is the case we will not investigate.

Summary: A man complained that the Council unreasonably failed to notify his family about his mother’s death, and did not respond adequately to his subsequent enquiries about events surrounding her death. But we will not investigate these matters because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charges for the complainant’s mother’s care service. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and not enough justification for us to call on the Council to provide the remedy Miss B is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s daughter’s financial contributions to her social care costs. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms C complained the Council should have moved her son into supported living accommodation first, rather than immediately into an independent flat. She said that, as a result, he did not have the independent living skills needed yet, which resulted in distress to her and her son not being able to cope.

Summary: Mr B says the Council failed to properly consider his mother’s needs when completing works for a disabled facilities grant, failed to take action when the issues became clear, misled him and is unreasonably requiring a new disabled facilities grant application. The Council’s communications with Mr B have been poor and there was delay, although that is unlikely to have affected the issues being resolved. An apology, payment to Mr B and prioritising a visit to assess the works required is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: Ms X complained the Fountains Nursing Home failed to provide adequate care to her father in the hours prior to his death and that the Council’s safeguarding investigation was flawed. The Council has already identified fault, mainly around communication with the family and the Nursing Home’s recording of events. It has apologised to Ms X and made service improvements. These are suitable actions to remedy Ms X’s injustice and prevent a reoccurrence.

Summary: Mrs X complains on behalf of Mrs Y about the care provided to her at Greenacres Care Home and its refusal to let her return to the home from hospital. Mrs X says this impacted Mrs Y’s health and caused her distress and confusion. We find the Care Provider was not at fault in the care it provided or in its decision for Mrs Y not to return. However, it was at fault in the way it kept Mrs Y’s records and communicated with the family. It has agreed to apologise and take action to improve record keeping and communication.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to meet her care needs and charged her client contributions when she was not receiving support. There was no fault in the way the Council sought to find support workers for Miss X or in the way it supported her with repairs. The Council was at fault for not properly considering Miss X’s concerns about her safety in the community. It has already apologised for this. There was no fault in the way it assessed Miss X’s client contribution, but it provided unclear and inaccurate information about what she owed. This was fault. The Council has agreed to apologise and waive Miss X’s debt. It has agreed to ensure it discusses with her how her contribution is paid in future and to review the communication between the relevant teams.

Summary: Ms C complained about the Council’s decision to uphold a complaint against her and subsequently remove her from the Community Micro-Enterprise Programme (CMEP). Ms C said this resulted in her being very distressed and has affected her business. We found that, although there was some fault in the implementation of the process the Council followed, this did not affect the outcome of the process. The Council has agreed to apologise for any distress.

Summary: Ms X complains on behalf of Mr and Mrs Y about its significantly increased charge for Mr Y’s care. She said it caused them extreme emotional distress as they no longer have enough money for food and bills. We find the Council was not at fault.

Summary: Ms C complained the Council decided her brother has no needs that are eligible for Council support. As a result, her brother has lost his placement at his supported living accommodation scheme and faces homelessness. We decided to discontinue our investigation, because Ms C has made a similar complaint to another body, who is currently investigating these manners.

Summary: Home care staff commissioned by the Council failed to follow the correct procedure when Mrs Y was unwell. The Council then failed to deal with Mrs X’s complaint about this properly.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care services for the complainant’s mother. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and to call on the Council to waive the charges.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award a Blue Badge. This is because the Council has offered to do a further assessment and it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response.

Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision not to award another Blue Badge to Ms X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to procure a female support worker. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision and the service user can ask for a further review once his service has been in place for a year.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Ms B. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We cannot consider a complaint when the Council has taken court action.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to suspend direct payments. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care that the complainants late mother in law received in 2018. This is because the events happened too long ago, and I see no reason why the complaint could not have been made sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the damage caused to the complainant’s worktop. It would be reasonable for the complainant to take the matter to court.