Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed in the way it carried out her care needs assessment and re-assessment and failed to arrange support for her eligible care needs. Ms X also says the Council failed to properly carry out her financial assessment.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council overcharged for her late mother’s care home fees and the costs were unauthorised. She also complained about poor communication. The Council wrongly charged for dementia care, did not explain the Deferred Payment Agreement annual uplift and did not confirm in writing Mrs Y’s care home room rate. The Council was also at fault for a delay in responding to Miss X’s complaint. This caused Miss X distress and time and trouble. The Council has already apologised, refunded the dementia and annual uplift overpayments and refunded the interest paid. This was an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused. The Council is also reviewing its procedures to prevent a reoccurrence of the faults. The Council will provide evidence it has done this.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the care her father received and the accuracy of notes that were taken while he was resident in a care home. Mrs X said the poor care meant her father’s health deteriorated rapidly. We find the Care Provider at fault for failing to take and keep accurate records. We recommend the Care Provider apologise to Mrs X, make a payment for uncertainty and distress, and remind its staff of the need to take accurate records going forward.

Summary: There was fault in the way the Council calculated Mr C’s capital which meant that he was charged too much for his stay at a care home. This also caused a lot of stress to Mr C’s family who were being pursued for the debt. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy and carry out a new financial assessment which will remedy the injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to deal properly with the charges for his father’s care, resulting in him receiving a bill for over £4,000 which he cannot afford to pay. The Council accepts it took too long to collect the charges. When it did, the charges were higher than it had said they would be, adding to Mr X’s confusion. The Council has agreed to waive £200 of the outstanding charges.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the safeguarding action the Council took in response to Miss X. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our investigating.

Summary: We do not consider Bedford Borough Council and East London NHS Foundation appropriately supported Mr Q’s sensory, mental health, social care, and communication needs. This most likely impacted his wellbeing. The Council also did not offer his mother, Mrs P, a carer’s assessment after June 2020, which caused her uncertainty. The Council and Trust should take action to remedy Mr Q and Mrs P’s injustice.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her care needs assessment. She complained the Council did not take her wishes into account, did not routinely share assessment documents with her, only provided an advocate for a two-week period, and did not consider her in line with safeguarding provisions. Ms X says the Council’s actions caused her to feel bullied. We found no fault by the Council and have concluded our investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Care Provider’s decision to end her mother, Mrs F’s, care home placement. This was after a breakdown in relationships between the Care Home and Mrs X. The Care Provider was at fault. It failed to properly consider Mrs F’s best interests and did not end the placement in line with Competition and Markets Authority guidance. The Care Provider should apologise to Mrs F and Mrs X for the distress, uncertainty and inconvenience caused. It should also review its procedures around decision to end a resident’s placement and how it deals with appeals and complaints about those decisions.

Summary: There was fault by the care agency. It did not send a written contract to Mrs X, when it arranged home care for her mother. It also did not provide enough notice in writing when it decided to terminate care services. This caused considerable distress for Mrs X, as her mother did not receive visits for 3 days before she became aware that care had stopped. An apology and a payment remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about money taken by the Council from Mrs D’s account. This is because the Council has apologised, written off Mrs D’s remaining debt and paid Ms B £100 for the time and trouble she had in pursuing the complaint. We are satisfied the injustice has been remedied.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not allowing the installation of slip resistant flooring to the general areas of Miss X’s property as part of her disabled facilities grant works. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to share a deceased person’s records with their executor. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused him a Disabled Facilities Grant for adaptations to his home. He complained its decision was based on a flawed occupational therapy assessment and during a home visit to assess the adaptations, a council officer was rude to him. The Council was not at fault for its decision making around the Disabled Facilities Grant. We could not make a finding regarding the allegation against the council officer as there is no evidence to substantiate either account. We have not investigated the occupational therapy assessment as this is a matter for a separate council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about residents being double charged for care and support services. This is because the alleged fault has not caused Mr X any personal injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the residential care received by his late wife, Mrs X. This is because further investigation will not add to the Care Home’s response

Summary: Mrs F complains about the council commissioned care her late father received at Camelot House and Lodge nursing home. Mrs F says poor care at the end of her father’s life caused him pain and discomfort and the family significant distress. The Council has accepted there was fault which caused injustice to Mrs F. It has agreed to make a payment to acknowledge this and make service improvements.

Summary: Ms X and Mr Y complained a Care Home failed to arrange suitable medical care for Ms X’s father in March 2022. We found no fault in the Care Home’s actions. It sought advice from health professionals and acted on the advice it received.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a care provider not releasing information to him regarding what happened on the day his mother was found unresponsive by her carers. This is because there is another body better placed to consider the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X being stopped from seeing his mother for two weeks while she was in a care home and that the care home provided inadequate care to Mr X’s mother. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. In addition, we do not consider Mr X to be a suitable representative for his mother.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly explain or advise her about the need for top up fees for her mother, Mrs Y’s care home, and has wrongly required her to pay these fees since her mother moved to the care home in 2007. Mrs X says this has placed her family under unnecessary financial strain for many years.

Summary: Mr C complained that about the actions of the Council in respect of his son, Mr D’s contribution to his care charges. In particular it failed to meet with Mr C to discuss the payment of household costs and the amount of other disability-related expenditure. We found the Council at fault for not meeting with Mr C sooner and not making more effort to explore the financial situation between Mr C and Mr D. The Council has now met with Mr C and revised the outstanding bill. It has also agreed to pay Mr C £300.

Summary: Overall, there is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it assessed Mrs X’s care needs. However, there is evidence of fault by the Council in the time taken to confirm Mrs X’s personal budget, for which it has agreed to apologise.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council’s Major Adaptations Occupational Therapy (OT) Team has failed to carry out a home assessment for adaptations for a ramp and wet room to meet the needs of his partner. The Council is not at fault. An OT assessment would only be carried out as part of a disabled facilities grant application for which Mr X would need to complete a test of resources, which he chose not to do.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council investigated and responded to safeguarding allegations made against her in her role working with adults with care and support needs. We have ended our investigation as it is for the provider Mrs X works for to investigate and decide what action to take. We cannot achieve a meaningful or different outcome by investigating further.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaints about Torbay Council. A significant amount of time has passed since the events complained about which impacts on our ability to consider them now. Also, we are unlikely to be able to achieve the outcome Mrs X seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaints about Torbay Council. A significant amount of time has passed since the events complained about which impacts on our ability to consider them now. Also, we are unlikely to be able to achieve the outcome Mrs X seeks.

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council wrongly assessed him as being liable to pay a contribution towards the costs of his care and support. He says he cannot afford to make the payment and needs the money to pay for medication that is not available on the NHS. We found no fault in the way the Council completed the financial assessment. So, there are no grounds to criticise its decision that Mr X should contribute towards the cost of his care.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged damage to Mr X’s bin by a carer. It is reasonable for Mr X to instead raise the issue with the Council’s insurers, and then refer it to the small claims court if the Council does not agree to compensate him.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging Mr X’s father for care and support received in 2019. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons why Mr X could not have complained earlier.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a care provider charging for care and support for two weeks after the date Mrs X’s father died. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council refused to give him a Disabled Facilities Grant to help adapt his home for his child who has several health problems. There was no fault with how the Council reached its decision.

Summary: There was fault in the initial calculation of the contribution and in some of the invoices the Council sent. There was further fault as the Council disclosed information about Ms B which it should not have done. We find no fault in the Council’s help in finding residential accommodation for Ms B for a short period of time and Ms B’s stay at that accommodation. The Council has corrected the error in the contribution and invoices and backdated any changes and has offered £500. These are appropriate remedies for the fault that we have found.

Summary: We found no fault by a Council and ICB with regards to how they assessed Mrs Y’s needs following her discharge from hospital. However, we found fault with the Council’s complaint response which incorrectly advised Mrs Y’s son that a Continuing Healthcare Checklist had been completed when it had not. The Council will apologise for the distress this caused.

Summary: There was fault by the Council. The Council arranged home care for Mrs Y, but did not send her invoices for over 18 months due to a system failure. This meant that she received a large backdated invoice. The Council’s apology, waiving part of the bill and affordable payment plan remedies the injustice to Mrs Y. The Council will also review its procedures to ensure the fault does not recur.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s administration of a top-up fee agreement in 2018 for his mother Mrs X’s care home placement. There is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant an investigation. The Council’s funding of Mrs X’s out-of-area placement does not cause significant personal injustice. The complaint is also late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs Y’s medical treatment and Lasting Power of Attorney. The Office of the Public Guardian and the NHS are best placed to consider these complaints. The NHS is not an organisation within our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council managed Mr X’s care and support needs. This is because an investigation could not add to the Council’s investigation and because it would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the level of care provided to her mother, Mrs Y, by the care home commissioned by the Council. She also complained about delays in the safeguarding process. There was delay in the safeguarding process. The Council will apologise, pay Mrs X £100 to remedy the additional time and trouble caused, and make changes to its processes.

Summary: The care provider acted properly in altering the number of carers when the late Mrs X was no longer able to bear weight on her foot. The care provider set out the pricing structure for care visits: however, the carers’ logs were not always clear about the length of each visit. The care provider will ensure its records are clear so service users can identify the time period for which they are charged; it will also now carry out a review of the disputed charges.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the short-term respite care her father, Mr Z, received at Farthings Residential Care Home which is owned by Ashall Care Ltd. The care provider has already found it failed to properly check Mr Z’s room when he moved in and did not explain how to keep his valuables safe. It has explained what service improvements it will make. The care provider was also at fault for not providing written details of the terms of Mr Z’s stay although this did not cause a significant injustice. It also acted with fault when it failed to take appropriate steps when Mrs X reported money belonging to Mr Z had gone missing. It has agreed to make service changes to prevent a reoccurrence. There was no fault in Mr Z’s pre-admission assessment, his care plan or the care he received.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council is failing to take decisions about significant items of expenditure properly, resulting in his brother spending money inappropriately. The Council has not been at fault over this matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging Mr X for care and support and for not making the reasonable adjustments requested. This is because we have previously considered the complaint and the complaint about reasonable adjustments is late.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to implement a policy warning past, current and potential customers of its high fees. This is because the Council has explained the actions it has taken to advise customers of the costs and we are satisfied this is an appropriate proportionate response. We could achieve no more.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council is engaged in a criminal conspiracy against the complainant. This is because the Council will send another complaint response.

Summary: The Council has properly considered the most reasonable and practicable scheme for a disabled facilities grant home adaptation, to meet Mrs C's care needs. In reaching its decision the Council has considered the family’s preferences, advice of relevant professionals, and the needs of carers.