Summary: Mr X complains about the care the late Mr Y received in Highfield House Care Home and the safeguarding enquiry it undertook. Mr X says Mr Y was subject to incidents of abuse from care workers and although he was told the Council was investigating with Police, he heard nothing. We find the Council was at fault because of the incidents Mr Y experienced and the lack of communication with Mr X. It has agreed to apologise to Mr X, pay him £200 and take action to prevent similar problems in future.

Summary: Mr X’s needs had increased after a fall and the Council put more care in place. Once his care staff confirmed they could deliver the right care in fewer hours again, and Mr X was expected to improve with rehabilitation, it was not fault on the part of the Council to reduce his hours.

Summary: The Council was at fault for ending its support of Mr X without warning and without considering referring him to an advocate. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, pay him £500 and take action to improve its service.

Summary: The Council failed to consider Ms X for reablement services. It then failed to provide appropriate advice about direct payments which resulted in a significant financial loss for Ms X. The Council also failed to consider information Ms X provided about the service she received from a personal assistant.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Disabled Facilities Grant because we are satisfied with the actions the Council proposes to take to remedy any fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs D’s complaint about the care Mrs E received from her former care provider. This is because further investigation by the Ombudsman could not add to the care provider’s response or make a finding of the kind Mrs D wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s father’s needs. There is not a good reason Mr X did not complain to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Care Provider’s staff. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is unlikely we could add anything to the response the complainant has already received.

Summary: The care provider did not provide sufficiently clear information about the fees or placement before Mr and Mrs X moved into the home. It should repay the deposit amount to Ms A.

Summary: The Council reviewed the amount of Mrs X’s Direct Payment budget to enable her to purchase more overnight stays for her son M after she appealed its initial decision.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to assess care needs and costs for her uncle, Mr Y, when he moved into a care home. The Council did not follow the correct process in its assessments, complete these in good time, or keep Mr Y and his family updated. This caused avoidable distress, confusion, and time and trouble, for which the Council agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy to Mr Y and his family. It also agreed to issue reminders to its staff and review its procedures.

Summary: The Council took all appropriate action when Ms X raised her concerns. A safeguarding alert had already been raised and was with the police. Ms X chose to move out of the available accommodation before the Council could make suitable arrangements: that was her prerogative but is not the fault of the Council.

Summary: Mrs B complained about the care provided to her mother Mrs C during a two week stay at a care home commissioned by the Council. We have not found fault with the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about matters relating to her mother’s care home placement between late 2017 and early 2020. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and I see no good grounds to consider it now.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to pay him compensation for the poor services he and Mr E received from one of its contractors. This is because the Council has apologised for its failings and explained what action it has taken to minimise the risk of similar occurrences in the future. We are satisfied the apology and actions taken by the Council remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council assessed Ms X’s care and support needs. That is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider not having paid for services provided by a recruitment business. It is reasonable for the business to make a claim through the courts for breach of contract.

Summary: Mrs X complained about home care provided to her late mother that was arranged by the Council. We have not found the Council to be at fault.

Summary: Mr C complained about the care provider’s decision to stop his wife’s care package with immediate effect. He said the decision was wrong and it resulted in distress to him and his wife. We found there was no fault. The care provider considered the information available at the time and concluded that, in light of it, it should stop the care package with immediate effect. We cannot question a decision a care provider makes if it followed the right process, considered the information available at the time, and came to a reasoned decision.

Summary: Mr and Mrs B say the Council failed to provide appropriate advice and support about funding and care options in 2020, failed to carry out a continuing healthcare assessment, failed to review the case, delayed identifying a suitable home when Mrs B was in hospital, delayed responding to the complaint and failed to identify any lessons from the complaint. The Council failed to carry out a continuing healthcare assessment and failed to explain what action it had taken to address the issues identified. Procedural changes and training already taken or planned, alongside an apology and payment to Mr B is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: Ms C complained about the Council’s decision that her brother does not have eligible needs, which has resulted in a decision he is no longer eligible to live in supported living accommodation. We did not find fault with the way in which the Council made its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the loss of Ms Y’s jewellery. This is because the Care Provider has agreed to pay Ms Y £300 to acknowledge the uncertainty caused by its failure to log items out of its safe when returning these to the family.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council completed Mr X’s care needs assessment. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council’s actions when it received a safeguarding alert. There is not a good reason Ms X did not complain sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s apology after an officer made a false statement about the contents of his email correspondence during a meeting. This is because the matter has been resolved prior to our involvement.

Summary: There was fault by two councils in the way they dealt with Mr Y’s care and support arrangements when he was released from prison. This caused avoidable distress. The councils will apologise, make a symbolic payment and review procedures.

Summary: Mr U complains that despite his warnings, the care provider left his wife unsupervised near to another resident. This led to his wife falling and breaking her leg. He says the care provider should pay for the cost of adaptations to their home. We uphold the complaint. But we do not agree the fault led to the direct need for the home adaptations. The care provider has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the uncertainty caused by the fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about advice Mr X says the Care Provider gave his mother. Mr X did not experience a significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s emergency care call service. We could not add to the investigation that has already taken place, and the Council has agreed to our recommendations to apologise to Mr Y and his family and pay them £250 to recognise the distress the incident caused them. We are satisfied with this, along with action the service has already taken.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council incorrectly charging Ms X for care. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: Mrs C said the Council delayed in carrying out a financial assessment of her contributions towards her adult social care. The Council was at fault for delay. This caused Mrs C injustice in that she faced stress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs C a sum in recognition of this injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his parents’ home care package and his complaints. There was fault in how the Council failed to review Mr X’s parents’ care plans and did not follow the correct safeguarding process when investigating some concerns about Mr X’s parents. The Council has already made some service improvements, and we have made further recommendations for it to address the personal injustice caused to Mr X.

Summary: Ms C complained there was a delay by the care home in recognising her mother’s condition had deteriorated, which resulted in a delay calling an ambulance. While we did not find fault about the alleged delay, we found the care provider did not properly respond to Ms C’s complaint. The care provider has agreed to apologise for this.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X and Mrs Y complained about the Council’s decisions about Mrs B’s care and how it considered their views. They also said it wrongly investigated safeguarding concerns about them. We found no fault in how the Council reached its decisions about Mrs B’s capacity and care, nor how it investigated the safeguarding concerns. Without fault in the process, we cannot criticise the merits of the decisions the Council made.

Summary: Mrs X complained the care provider refused to communicate with her and allow her to see her mother, Mrs Y’s, care plan even though she has lasting power of attorney. We have ended the investigation as we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X is seeking and the Office of the Public Guardian is best placed to address concerns about the actions of attorneys. Mrs X can also approach the Court of Protection.

Summary: Ms C complained the Council issued a wrong invoice, which it has later failed to correct. We found there was fault, for which the Council has already apologised. It has also identified suitable actions to try and ensure this will not happen again.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has said he is not eligible for a Disabled Facilities Grant. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council made that decision to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s failure to pay his company for the care it provided on behalf of the Council. This is because the amount of money Mr B says the Council owes significant enough to be pursued in court in contract law, and it would be reasonable for Mr B to use this to remedy any injustice the Council has caused him or his company.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider breaching data protection. This is because breaches of data are normally for the Information Commissioner’s Office to consider, and Mr B has reported these breaches to the ICO.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the actions of his mother’s, Mrs C’s Care Provider. This is because further investigation could not provide a different outcome to that already given or make a finding of the kind Mr B wants.