Summary: The Ombudsmen find a Nursing Home, Hospital Trust and Ambulance Trust responded appropriately when a Nursing Home resident became unwell in March 2020. Based on the evidence seen to date, professionals completed appropriate assessments and acted in line with guidance in place at that time. There was fault in the way the Nursing Home handled a relative’s request for copies of records. We have made recommendations to address this.

Summary: Ms B complained on behalf of her father about charging and the way the care provider treated funded nursing care payments. She considered the contract the family signed meant the payments should have been used to reduce the fee but instead they had been retained by the care provider. Mr X had, therefore, paid too much for his care. There was fault by the care provider which caused injustice to Mr X.

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of Mr Y about the Council’s changes to his direct payment and support plan when it removed mileage costs and acupuncture. He said this caused Mr Y much stress and it created a shortfall in his account. We find the Council was not at fault in deciding not to fund these, but it did not make this clear to Mr Y in the case of the mileage costs for years. The Council has agreed to apologise and backdate the allowance to 30 September 2020 (the point where it has clear evidence Mr Y was told it would no longer be allowed).

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the care his mother received. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to add anything to the response Mr X has already received or achieve the outcomes he would like.

Summary: The complainant, Ms B, said she learnt in 2020 the Council, the Trust and two Clinical Commissioning Groups did not properly consider her daughter’s, Miss G’s, entitlement to free aftercare following her detainment under the Mental Health Act 1983. She also complained about the care and support provided to Miss G by the Council and the Trust. On the evidence available, we found that Miss G was not entitled to free aftercare. However, poor record keeping by the authorities led to confusion and Ms B’s uncertainty about Miss G’s entitlement to free aftercare. It also meant one of the CCG’s did not consider Miss G for healthcare funding when it should have. The Council and the Trust did not work together to complete the actions in Miss G’s discharge plan when she was released from detention and the Council did not complete care and support planning documentation properly. The authorities agreed to our recommendations and will reassess Miss G’s needs and entitlement to healthcare funding. The Council, the Trust and one of the CCG’s will apologise to Ms B and Miss G and make an acknowledgement payment. The Council will remind its officers of the importance of completing care and support planning documentation in line with best practice and statutory guidance.

Summary: Mrs C complains about poor communication from the Council in relation to care provision, failure to complete a carer assessment, inadequate care, delay setting up direct payments and implementing an increase in provision and failure to provide a suitable chair. The Council delayed telling Mrs C about the cost of the service, failed to ensure a handover took place, failed to complete a carer assessment and provided Mrs C with wrong information about the provision of the chair. Those failures did not affect the provision in place. An apology, payment to Mr D and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to meet her sister’s needs, as a result of which she did not receive the support she needed in the community. Mrs X said this had a negative impact on her sister’s wellbeing and caused her and her mother distress. We found shortcomings in the support Ms Y received. The Council has agreed to apologise for the distress this caused and pay Ms Y and her mother a financial remedy.

Summary: Mrs Y complained about the quality of care provided to Mr X by Shire House, on behalf of the Council. We have found fault by Shire House in its care of Mr X, in failing to keep accurate records, properly monitor his food and fluid intake and assess the risk to his health or the need for further medical intervention. This fault caused injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy by making a payment to Mrs Y to reflect the distress, time and trouble caused to her and her family, apologising and providing evidence of the action taken to improve Shire House’s service.

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about the standards of care the complainant has experienced in a care home. This is because we cannot add anything to the Council’s response or achieve the outcome the complainant’s representative seeks.

Summary: Ms X complained about poor care provided to her late father, Mr Y, and poor communication by a Council-commissioned care home. The Council was not at fault.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council hasn’t properly considered the terms and conditions of a Disabled Facilities Grant. The Council is not at fault.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her mother’s care and support needs. She complains the Council did not reassess her mother’s care and support needs in October 2020, failed to provide her mother with 24 hour care, and only gave her a few days to find her mother a care home. She says this caused her distress. We find fault with some of the Council’s actions. We have made recommendations for the Council to apologise, to reimburse Ms X, and to pay a financial remedy.

Summary: The care provider did not act in accordance with the admission agreement the late Ms X signed. Its explanation of its actions did not accord with the contract. The care provider will reimburse the FNC payments received.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to do a loft conversion funded by a Disabled Facilities Grant. This is because the Council is revising the decision and considering approving a loft conversion.

Summary: The care provider was within its right to terminate its services, and it did so after following the correct process. There can be now worthwhile outcome from any further investigation by this office.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council failed to pay him direct payments. That is because Mr X’s complaint is late as it would have been reasonable for him to complain to us earlier. He has also taken court action in respect of the Council’s most recent Care Act assessment. We cannot investigate a complaint that has been considered by the court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council charged the complainant for care while she was in hospital. This is because there is no evidence off fault.

Summary: Mrs X complained about poor communications from the Care Provider the Council commissioned. She also said the Care Provider had failed to return some of her husband’s possessions. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because the Council arranged for the Care Provider to contact Mrs X directly to resolve any outstanding issues. This remedies the remaining injustice to Mrs X and it is unlikely an investigation could achieve anything more.

Summary: We have decided to close the investigation as nothing further can be achieved by further investigating. The Council has offered Ms B an assessment of her needs and offered to provide a support package to her if she has eligible needs. Ms B has declined these offers.

Summary: Mr R, representing his daughter, Ms G, said the Council was at fault for delays in providing suitable care for Ms G, and for being unhelpful and obstructive in the way it monitored spending of direct payments made to fund that care. He also said it was responsible for unnecessary delays in finding care and communicated poorly with the family. The Council was at fault for poor communication. This fault caused Ms G injustice because the family felt the Council was accusing them of dishonesty. The Council should apologise. I have not found the Council at fault in other regards.

Summary: Mrs C complained about the way the Council handled Mr X’s move to another supported living accommodation scheme. She said there were unreasonable delays, the process was not properly explained to her, and her son missed out on a flat he preferred. We found there were delays in the process to move Mr X to alternative accommodation. The Council has agreed to apologise for this and pay a financial remedy to Mrs C and Mr X for the distress this caused.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council. The client contribution towards care fees was based on the financial assessment of Mrs Y's income not the cost of the care home fees or whether or not she was eligible for Funded Nursing Care. The fact that Mrs Y was eligible for Funded Nursing Care would not have reduced her contribution to costs.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to charge him for the non-residential care he receives. The Council was not at fault.

Summary: The complaint about the Council’s failure to properly safeguard the complainant’s mother, Mrs D will not be investigated. This is because Mrs D has now died, and we would be unable to remedy any personal injustice that she may have suffered. It is also unlikely investigation of the complaint would result in finding the Council at fault.

Summary: The Care Provider took too long to submit a nursing assessment for Funded Nursing Care. This caused Mrs Y a financial loss because her fees were not reduced for three months. The Care Provider will apologise and reimburse Mrs Y.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to retrospectively fund PA support for his daughter, Miss X, during a family holiday abroad. This is because an investigation by this office would not be able to add to the response already provided via the Council’s previous investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about Mr X’s residential setting being unable to meet his needs from 2015 to 2017. There is not a good reason Mrs X did not complain sooner.

Summary: the complainant, Mrs X, complained the Council failed to properly consider adaptations for her family when it could not find her a four-bedroom home. The Council says it has offered suitable solutions which the family refused and could do no more when the family withdrew permission to engage with other professionals. We found the Council at fault. It agrees to apologise, pay Mrs X £200 and arrange a meeting to discuss reassessing the family.

Summary: Ms X complained that carers dropped her while lifting her using a hoist. She said the hoist strap was not securely attached. Ms X also complained about the way the Council responded to her complaint about the incident, and that it did not contact her for weeks afterwards. Ms X said being dropped caused her injury, and she is now reluctant to engage with care services because of a lack of trust. She also said the Council’s response made her feel dismissed. We find the Council at fault for the way it conducted its enquiry. This caused Ms X injustice because it denied her an opportunity to be involved in the process and give her version of events, and it caused uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and make improvements to its service.

Summary: the complainant complained about the poor quality of care, commissioned by the Council at Tanworth Court Care Home, Tanworth Lane, Solihull and the Council’s handling of a safeguarding investigation. The Council says it took suitable action, but recognised faults in its handling of the safeguarding investigation. We found the Council at fault for the standard of care and in the conduct of the safeguarding investigation. The Council has agreed a remedy.

Summary: The Council has already upheld the complaint that there was fault in the care provided to Mr D and this fault has been remedied. There was no fault in the way the Council decided whether to invite Mr C to a meeting with Mr D and its communications regarding this.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs C’s Care Provider refusing to allow Mr B to visit her. This is because the Court of Protection are determining where Mrs C should live, and Mr B can ask the court to consider his views about visiting her.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council discharged Miss X’s mother from a care home. This is because we cannot say that the actions of the directly led to her contracting Covid-19. We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about her mother’s capacity to make decisions about her own welfare as this matter has already been to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to properly consider Mrs B’s late aunt’s, Mrs C’s, finances. This is because there is no unremedied injustice warranting an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: Mrs C said the care agency organised by the Council did not follow her care plan. She complained the agency sent male care workers to provide domiciliary care when her care plan stated she wanted females. The Council was at fault for failing to record Mrs C’s carer preferences and its delay sourcing a new care provider. The Council offered Mrs C a suitable remedy for the injustice caused by its faults. The Council will make service improvements to prevent future injustice to others.

Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s decision to reduce the number of hours it funds, as part of the complainant’s home care package. The Council was entitled to decide, upon reassessment, the complainant did not require the level of support it had previously approved. We have therefore completed our investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her mother, Mrs Y that the Council failed to provide regular invoices in relation to Mrs Y’s care costs. Mrs X says this caused avoidable worry and frustration. We found the Council to be at fault regarding this matter. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs X to remedy the injustice caused, and to monitor the invoicing of Mrs Y’s care costs.

Summary: The Council has properly decided it can meet Ms D’s adult social care needs in a cheaper residential home, despite Mr C’s strong wish for Ms D to remain living where she is. The Council will only consider moving Ms D once Covid-19 pandemic restrictions are lifted, and if there is a placement available to meet Ms D's needs to the same standard as her existing placement. Meanwhile, the Council is funding the placement in full, so Mr C and Ms D have no significant injustice.

Summary: The Care Provider reimbursed Mrs Y a significant amount of the care fees paid in acknowledgment of her complaint about poor care. This is a satisfactory remedy.

Summary: A man complained about the way the Council dealt with his mother’s application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. But we do not have reason to investigate the complaint. This is because there is no sign that fault by the Council has caused the man or his mother an injustice to warrant our further involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to place Mrs Y in a care home closer to Mr X. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is nothing further we could achieve as the Council has now moved Mrs Y to a care home closer to Mr X.