Summary: Mrs X complained that the Care Provider, acting on behalf of the Council, delayed advising family of the late Mrs Y’s fall. Also, that it unreasonably refused to allow her to return from hospital and did not deal with her complaint properly. Mrs X says Mrs Y was deeply distressed by this. We find no fault in the delay contacting family or the decision not to accept Mrs Y back. We found fault in the complaint handling and have recommended the Council apologise and ensure the Care Provider takes action to prevent similar problems in future.

Summary: Mrs X complains about an allegation made against her son, the Care Provider’s failure to deal properly with her concerns and its decision to end its support. The Care Provider accepts it did not deal with her concerns properly and that if it had it should have been able to resolve them without ending her son’s support, which caused avoidable distress to them both. The Care Provider needs to send a further apology, make symbolic payments to Mrs X and her son and improve its working practices.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council illegally keeping Mr B from caring for his wife, lying, and disrespecting him. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council and further investigation could not add to the Council's response or make a different finding of the kind Mr B wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care provided to the late Mrs C. This is because we could not add to the Care Provider’s responses even if we investigated. Mrs B can ask the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to consider whether she should have access to the information she says she wants but has not received from the late Mrs C’s Care Provider, and it would be reasonable for her to do so.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision that Mrs Y deprived herself of assets to avoid paying care costs. She says this means Mrs Y has to pay unfairly. We find the Council is not at fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms C’s complaint about the Council’s failure to inform her of the death of her brother, Mr B, at the earliest opportunity. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an ombudsman investigation.

Summary: Ms B complained about the way in which the Council dealt with her application to renew her blue badge. She does not believe the Council properly considered her condition or the information she provided. We found fault with Council and it has agreed to arrange a mobility assessment for Ms B.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the complainant’s mother’s care. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complaint has been made late to us outside of our usual 12-month time period for accepting complaints. And, I have seen no evidence the complainant could not have complained to us earlier.

Summary: Mr X complained about charges for his mother’s residential care. Mr X also complained failings by the Council’s care provider led to his mother catching COVID-19 and passing away. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council charged for the residential care. We could also never conclude fault by the Council’s care provider led to Mr X’s mother catching COVID-19. It is therefore unlikely we could add to the response Mr X has already received.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a safeguarding referral. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a care provider making false accusations about Mr X regarding inappropriate behaviour towards female care staff. This is because further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s response to his requests for more support with his caring role and the way it dealt with his complaint about that. He says this caused him much stress. At this point, we find that the Council caused Mr X injustice in the way it dealt with him and his complaint. It has agreed to apologise, pay Mr X £150, and review its training for staff and information for people using Council services.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council communicated an increase in care costs and overcharged for his late mother’s care. Mr X also complained his mother Mrs Y received care from one carer instead of two in the weeks before she passed away. The Council was at fault for giving wrong information on Mrs Y’s increased care charges, delay in providing a breakdown of care charges, the time taken to credit an overpayment and for not updating Mrs Y’s care and support plan. The Council has already apologised for the wrong charging advice and credited the overpayment. However, it caused Mr X avoidable distress and time and trouble. The Council will apologise and pay Mr X £300 to acknowledge the distress, delay and time and trouble caused and review its procedures for updating care and support plans.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council refused to pay for the repair of a gate at a property where his disabled son and daughter live. Mr X also complains that the Council refuses to accept, or make any provision for, the social care needs of his children. I have ended my investigation because I do not find fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to tell him he had to make a financial contribution towards the cost of his care at home. He also complained about being charged for care he did not receive. We have found the Council to be at fault because it sent bills to the wrong address and overcharged him by over £1000. This caused significant distress. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise, cancel the outstanding invoice and carry out a review of the Care Provider’s charging practices.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a refund of care home fees and the person’s eligibility for free care under s117 of the Mental Health Act 1983, as the issue has now been resolved.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to register a local land charge on the complainant’s home. This is because we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council invoicing him for his late father’s top up fees. This is because the Council has agreed to waive the charge and pay Mr B £200 for his time and trouble. We are satisfied the actions agreed by the Council remedy the injustice to Mr B.

Summary: Mrs B complained the Council has wrongly decided she should pay in full for her care. She also says the Council was wrong to include the money she gifted to her son when it completed its financial assessment. We find no fault in the Council’s decision making.

Summary: Mr C complained that the Council was at fault for its failure to provide him with support in his dealings with a private care provider and for the failures of that supplier. He also said the Council failed to process his application for financial assistance with the cost of his care. The Council accepted it was at fault for a failure to provide Mr C with support and assessment while he was receiving his care. This fault caused injustice to Mr C in the form of distress and anxiety. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr C and pay him a sum in recognition of that fault. It will also review its procedures to ensure that similar fault does not happen again.

Summary: Mrs N complained about the actions of Stonehaven Healthcare Ltd in relation to its care of her uncle, Mr X, during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Care Provider was at fault when it gave Mr X notice without first exploring alternative options. This caused Mr X uncertainty about whether the move to a new care home was necessary. The Care Provider has agreed pay Mr X £300 and make service changes. There was no fault in the Care Home’s visiting policy, or the length of time Mr X had to remain in self-isolation following a COVID-19 test.

Summary: Mr B complained that the Council is taking too long to find a supported living placement for his son Mr C. We have not found fault with the Council’s actions and noted that several assessments are ongoing.

Summary: the Council failed to take into account all the evidence provided when refusing Miss B’s application for a blue badge. An apology and arrangement for a further appeal is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about adult social care provision, because the injustice he claims is not serious enough to warrant our involvement and the use of public money.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Care Provider’s failure to issue a refund of care home fees paid for Mr X’s mother. This is because the Care Provider has recently issued a full refund and apologised. The claimed injustice has now been remedied and further investigation by this office is not proportionate.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s administration of his mother Mrs X’s financial or care assessments. There is not sufficient personal injustice caused to Mr X or Mrs X by the matters to warrant us investigating. An investigation cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants of the Council providing telephone call transcripts. We will not investigate a council’s complaint process where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs J’s complaint about her mother’s admission to hospital in March 2020. This is because a significant amount of time has passed since the events complained about which impacts on our ability to consider them now.