Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to act in her husband, Mr Y’s, best interest when it obtained a deprivation of liberty authorisation to keep him at the Care Home which had previously found to have been providing him with poor care. There was no fault in how the Council made decisions about Mr Y’s care placement. However, the Council failed to ensure the Care Home implemented the protection plans it identified as necessary during a safeguarding enquiry. This did not cause Mr Y or Ms X an injustice. The Council agreed to ensure protection plans are appropriately monitored.

Summary: There was fault by the Council in how it managed a disabled facilities grant application and installation, because it cannot provide an objective record of its initial visit to the property in question, but this did not cause an injustice. There is no other evidence of fault by the Council here, and so we have completed our investigation.

Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council terminated her son’s day care service without good reason and failed to offer any alternative provision. On the evidence available we found the Council was providing services on behalf of the NHS and so we cannot consider the complaint. Mrs B should complain to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging the late Mr B for his contribution towards his care. 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 this complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to safeguarding concerns about Ms X. We cannot investigate the Council’s decision to take court action, or what happened in court. We could not achieve the outcome Ms X seeks, and there is not enough evidence of fault in the elements of her complaint we could consider, to justify us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to investigate Mr X’s complaint until it has concluded adult safeguarding enquiries. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about telecare services because it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s investigation or reach a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has processed and handled Mr X’s personal data. This is because it is more appropriate for the Information Commissioner’s Office to consider the complaint.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide him with adequate social care support. The Council delayed assessing Mr X’s needs. This was fault. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X for the frustration this caused. There was no evidence of fault in the way it assessed his needs or the support provided.

Summary: Mrs B has complained that the Council was wrong to decide that she was liable to pay the balance of her mother’s care home fees due to a deliberate deprivation of assets. We cannot question the Council’s decision because we have found no fault in the way it was reached.

Summary: Mr X complained about failings in the service and support he receives from the Council’s Adult Social Care service. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed Mr X’s care needs or developed his support plan. However the failure to notify Mr X of, or involve Mr X in, the financial assessment and the need for a contribution towards the cost of his support is fault. This fault has caused Mr X an injustice.

Summary: Ms B complains about the care her son, Y, received at a residential care home (“the Home”), arranged by the Council. She says the Home neglected his personal care, did not involve family in decisions and reviews and failed to properly investigate safeguarding incidents. Ms B says Y suffered a serious injury due to a lack of proper care. She says the Council did not take the concerns she raised seriously. I have found fault in how the Home’s recording of dental and personal care and in how the Council and Home responded to reports of missing belongings. I have not found fault in the Home’s care leading to the serious injury, or in the Council’s overall response to safeguarding concerns.

Summary: Mrs B complained about the way the Council carried out a financial assessment for her sister, Miss C who lacked capacity to understand the process. We found the Council at fault for failing to contact Mrs B about or provide her with information regarding the financial assessment. The Council to write off the outstanding debt and pay Mrs B £200.

Summary: The Council has not shown how it reached the decision that the significant motivation of the timing of Mrs X’s disposal of her money was to avoid care charges. As it cannot do so, it should not regard her as retaining the notional capital and paying for her own care. It should reconsider how it reached that decision and take the appropriate steps to remedy any injustice.

Summary: Mr C complained about the way in which the Council assessed his mother’s needs and finances, as part of her permanent placement at a care home. He said this resulted in a debt accruing for his mother and distress to him. We did not uphold Mr C’s complaint.

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, concerning the assessment of and decisions about the complainant’s care needs. This is because we consider the investigation carried out by the local NHS Trust, acting on the Council’s behalf, has properly addressed the complaint, so that further investigation by the Ombudsman would not be proportionate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision Mr X’s mother deprived herself of assets by placing her property into a Trust. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault with the way the Council made its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about data protection legislation and the Council breaching Ms B’s personal data. This is because it would be reasonable for Ms B to ask the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to consider her complaint about data protection.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the care the Council provided for his mother, Mrs X. We could not add to the Council’s previous investigation of Mrs X’s fall, and investigation would not lead to a different outcome. We cannot achieve the main outcomes Mr X seeks from the complaint, which require findings of legal liability and negligence we cannot make, and it would be reasonable for him to pursue those outcomes in court.

Summary: The Council’s commissioned care provider failed to provide a proper standard of care and treatment to the late Mrs X, which resulted in injustice to her. The Council failed to process an application for Direct Payments in a timely manner, or offer an alternative care provider, which left Mrs X with the care provider which was the subject of her complaint. The Council has agreed to offer the sums detailed below to Ms X in accordance with our recommendations.

Summary: Mrs D complains about the standard of care and support her father (Mr H) received while in residential care. Among other things, Mrs D says the Care Provider failed to meet Mr H’s health and care needs and provided him medication he was not prescribed. We found some fault by the Care Provider in relation to its record keeping and care notes. However, there is no evidence to suggest Mr H suffered an injustice as a result of the fault identified. That said, the fault did cause Mrs D an injustice and so we have made a number of recommendations for the Care Provider to remedy this. We did not identify any other fault in this case.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the care her mother, Ms Y, received at the Care Provider’s Gatehouse Care Home in Harrogate, and its decision to end her contract. The Care Provider was at fault, and this caused Ms Y a financial loss and caused her family avoidable confusion and distress. The Care Provider agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy to Ms Y’s family, and repay Ms Y for the financial loss. It will also review relevant procedures and issue reminders to its staff.

Summary: Ms C complained about the care her father received from a homecare agency commissioned by the Council. We found there was fault with regards to some aspects of the care Mr F received, for which the Council has agreed to apologise.

Summary: Mr W and Ms P complain that building works funded by the Council through a number of disabled facilities grants have not been completed in a good and workmanlike manner. They also complain the building project has been delayed and the Council appointed contractor was not suitability qualified to carry out the works. As a result, Mr W and Ms P say their home is in a state of disrepair and they have incurred financial charges over their property as a result of agreeing to additional grants to remedy past errors. We consider there are a number of jurisdictional issues which prevent us from investigating this complaint. Fundamentally however, this a commercial legal dispute. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to judge whether the works have been carried out to a satisfactory standard. Both Mr W and Ms P agreed on how disputes should be dealt with under the various agreements they entered and I consider we are not the body best placed to consider this complaint. We have therefore discontinued our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to implement the recommendations we made following a previous investigation, and that the financial assessment is wrong. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: Mr C complained about the care his (late) mother received at the care home she lived. He said this resulted in distress to him and his mother. We found there was a delay by the care home in ensuring Ms X had heating in her room, and the staff did not regularly change her bedding during a three-month period. The care provider will apologise to Mr C for the distress this caused and reimburse part of the care home fees for these periods.

Summary: We found fault by the Council in its communication with Mrs Y about charges. The Council has already taken appropriate action to remedy the injustice. There was no fault in the Council’s assessment of Mrs Y’s disability expenses.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charging for adult social care. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: There is no evidence the Council promised to fund the additional lunchtime support which Mrs A arranged for her great-aunt.

Summary: Mrs J complained about the care her mother received while she was resident at Meadowbeck Care Home operated by the Care Provider. Among other matters, Mrs J complained she had only very limited opportunity to visit her mother before she died of COVID-19 in May 2020. We uphold the complaint finding Mrs J was caused injustice through distress, expressing concern at the Care Provider’s policy towards end of life visits for residents with COVID-19. We make recommendations at the end of this statement for how the Care Provider can remedy this injustice.

Summary: Mrs X complains the care provider acting for the Council has failed to address concerns raised by her and the provider has overcharged for care hours. Mrs X says this has caused distress to Mr and Mrs B and means they have been overcharged for their care. The Ombudsman finds fault with the care provider for how it logged the care for Mr and Mrs B, however, this did not cause injustice to them. The Ombudsman also finds fault with the Council and the Care Provider for how other incidents were handled, and for failing to consider the distress caused to Mr and Mrs B. The Council has agreed to pay a financial remedy and implement a service remedy.

Summary: Mrs X complains about delay by the Council in installing a replacement stairlift. Once the Council became aware of the issues it contacted the contractor to rectify the works. However, there was some delay by the Council caused by poor communication and failing to meet Mrs X’s needs. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X and make service improvements to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council managed the finances related to his son, Mr Y’s, social care needs. There was no fault in how the Council assessed Mr Y’s contribution to his care or managed his direct payment. There was fault in how the Council explained a change in 2019 and how it failed to respond to Mr X’s stage two complaint. This caused Mr X avoidable frustration, for which the Council agreed to apologise.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council told him it would not charge for his mother’s residential care charges and then reversed its position 18 months later. Mr also X complained when the Council told him about his mother’s residential care charges he had already disbursed the capital from the sale of his mother’s property. We found fault with the Council for the delays in telling Mr X about the care charges and its decision about deprivation of assets. The Council agreed to our recommendation to remove the full care charges from 18 February 2017 to 9 October 2017 and reduces the care charges by half from 10 October 2017 to 24 May 2018. The Council also agreed to review its decision about deprivation of assets.

Summary: Ms V complains on behalf of her deceased mother. She complains that neglectful care provision and lack of safeguarding led to the Council not acting in her mother’s best interests. She had lost a lot of weight and nobody took any action. The Ombudsman’s decision is there was some fault in the actions of a care provider providing care on behalf of the Council. It did not do all it could have done to respond to concerns about Ms V’s mother’s eating. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Summary: We found no fault by the Council and Integrated Care Board in terms of the Section 117 aftercare they provided to Mrs Y. However, we found the Council, Trust and ICB delayed significantly in carrying out a Section 117 review. They will apologise and pay Mr X a financial remedy in recognition of the distress and frustration this caused. The Council, Trust and ICB will also review their policies and procedures to prevent similar problems occurring in future.

Summary: There was no fault because the Council followed the correct process by assessing Mrs Y’s mental capacity to return home. And it put in place a care package after assessing her care needs. These actions were all in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and with Sections 9 and 18 of the Care Act 2015.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the assessment and care provided to Mr Y and the subsequent charges for this. We have ended our investigation into this complaint because Mrs X is not an authorised representative of the person affected by the Council’s actions.

Summary: Mrs Y complains about the inadequate advice the Council gave her about the alternatives for funding her late mother’s care. The outcome is they paid top up fees they could have avoided. The Ombudsman upholds the complaint. While we cannot know what would have happened but for the fault, Mrs Y lost an opportunity and this causes uncertainty. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Summary: The Council failed to properly consider Ms X’s application to renew her blue badge

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage to property because it is unlikely we could add to the Care Provider’s investigation or reach a different outcome. The Care Provider has made what appears to be a suitable offer to resolve the matter, the amount in dispute does not justify our involvement. Mrs B can make an insurance claim to determine what is an appropriate payment as she remains unhappy with the amount offered.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care provision, because we could not add to the Council’s own investigation, and the claimed injustice is not serious enough to warrant our involvement and the use of public money.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council handled his mother, Mrs Y’s care and finances. The Council failed to review Mrs Y’s care plan and package when concerns were raised for her wellbeing and failed to ensure care improved after it identified failings in the care provider. The Council also failed to follow the guidance when it decided Mrs Y had intentionally deprived herself of £15000 to avoid paying care fees. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X for the distress caused and re-make its decision on the deprivation of assets in line with the guidance.

Summary: Mr B complained about how the Council handled his late mother’s care costs and its decision to include her share of a property when calculating her contribution towards the costs resulting in him receiving a larger than expected bill. We found no fault on the Council’s part.