Summary: Mrs D complained about the way the Council, the Trust and Bromley Healthcare dealt with her late brother Mr S’s discharge from hospital, wheelchair provision and social care. We have not upheld the complaints about the Council and Bromley Healthcare. Most complaints about the Trust are also not upheld. However, we found the Trust was at fault in not making psychological support available to Mr S. The Trust accepts our recommendation, so we have completed our investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not ensure he had adequate care support and left him in unsuitable accommodation. We found no fault in the Council’s decision making on Mr X’s care. But we found fault in the Council’s delay in securing Mr X new accommodation. We recommended the Council apologise and pay Mr X £300 for distress and uncertainty.

Summary: Mr D complained the Council has failed to provide him with appropriate assistance in securing a care facility for his wife. He also says the Council delayed offering him respite care. We find the Council was at fault as it failed to respond to a request for information regarding a potential care facility and it should have managed Mr D’s expectations better. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to reflect the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her daughter, Miss Y, about the Council’s decisions regarding the use of direct payments and an unpaid invoice for Miss Y’s assessed contribution. Mrs X says the Council has overcharged Miss Y and caused avoidable stress. We have discontinued our investigation because the complaint is late.

Summary: Ms X complains there were failings in the way the Council monitored the package of social care provided to Mr Y by a care provider. This led to Mr Y living in an unsuitable property due to its disrepair and issues with management of his finances causing distress to Mr Y’s family. Once the Council became aware of the issues it took appropriate action and moved Mr Y to more suitable accommodation. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters so have completed our investigation.

Summary: Ms X complained that her father, Mr Y, received inadequate care during a respite placement. We found the care provider failed to provide an adequate service to Mr Y causing him avoidable harm and distress. This also caused his family avoidable distress. In addition, the care provider failed to keep full and accurate records about Mr Y. In recognition of the injustice caused, the care provider has agreed to refund half of the fees Mr Y paid and make a payment to his family.

Summary: The complainant raised concerns about the care his father received at a care home. The Care Provider has waived outstanding charges to remedy the complaint. This is a satisfactory resolution for the complainant and no further action is needed from the Ombudsman.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a care provider fabricating how his mother sustained some injuries in 2020. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons for why Mr X did not complain about the matter earlier. In addition, even if we were to exercise discretion, we would not be able to achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a care provider misquoting Mrs X for the cost of her mother’s placement. This is because the accepted fault did not cause any injustice to Mrs A and the care provider has already appropriately remedied the injustice caused to Mrs X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about bias by the Council when Mr B raised concerns about his mother’s adult social care. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about poor quality work carried out on a property before Mrs X bought it from the Council. The courts are best placed to deal with claims for compensation due to negligence.

Summary: Ms X complains about poor care provided to her mother, Ms Y, and poor communication from a Council-commissioned home care provider between June 2021 and February 2022. She said the poor care and poor communication have caused her and her mother distress. The Council was at fault. The care provider did not administer Ms Y’s medication safely, there was poor record keeping which has caused uncertainty and poor complaints handling. The faults did not cause Ms Y any harm, but the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £200 in recognition of the distress and uncertainty caused.

Summary: Miss X complains about how the Council has dealt with her occupational therapy assessment. The Council is at fault as it delayed in carrying out an occupational therapy assessment, delayed in pursuing the recommendations of the assessment and delayed in responding to Miss X’s complaint. The delays caused distress, frustration and avoidable time and trouble to Miss X which the Council has agreed to remedy by apologising and making a payment of £1000 to her and taking further action.

Summary: The Council was at fault because it did not review Ms Y’s occupational therapy assessment. This meant another council completed adaptations to the front of her property which were unsuitable and therefore unusable. This caused avoidable frustration, distress, inconvenience and time and trouble complaining. The Council will apologise, make symbolic payments and revise procedures.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about how the Council responded to concerns about Ms X’s parents’ finances and overcharging for care. There is not a good reason Ms X did not complain to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an introductory agency because its actions have not caused significant injustice to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to start a safeguarding investigation. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We have not found fault with the way the Council calculated the costs of a residential placement or the advice that the social worker gave at the time. The Council has already upheld the complaint that there was a significant delay in completing the financial assessment and this was fault. This delay caused an injustice to Mr D as it meant that he was not provided with the financial assessment and an accurate forecast of the costs at the time when he was making decisions about where his mother should live. The Council has agreed to review the invoice for the care home fees.

Summary: Ms Y complained about the standard of care Landmark Care Ltd, trading as Home Instead, provided to Mrs W. We have found fault by Landmark Care Ltd in failing to properly assess Mrs W’s care needs, engage a care worker with appropriate skills and provide an adequate standard of care, causing injustice. Landmark Care Ltd has agreed to remedy its faults by apologising and making a payment to reflect Ms Y’s distress, time and trouble.

Summary: There was fault by the Council because it did not properly plan Miss K’s transition from Children to Adult Services and how it would arrange and fund her care. There was also fault in its complaint handling as it failed to refer Miss K’s complaint to a stage three review panel in accordance with the statutory complaints process. The Council’s shortcomings caused Miss K and her foster carer distress and frustration. They are also left uncertain that some matters might have been resolved had the Council completed the complaints process. The Council has agreed to take the further action I recommended to remedy the complaint.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her disabled son, Mr F’s care between 2020 and 2022 following a safeguarding investigation. There was fault identified by a safeguarding investigation around the care Mr F received at a care home commissioned by the Council. There was then poor communication and delay in putting funding in place when Mr F moved into a temporary care home. The Council agreed to apologise and pay Ms X a total of £600 to remedy the distress and uncertainty caused by the faults. There was no fault in the Council issuing Ms X with an invoice for outstanding care fee contributions or with how it managed Mr F’s move to a permanent supported living placement.

Summary: Ms C complains the Care Provider failed to support Mrs D which resulted in her premature death. The Care Provider failed to record decisions, follow care plans, monitor Mrs D’s nutrition needs, and properly respond to Ms C’s complaints. Ms C has the uncertainty of not knowing, but for the faults identified, whether Mrs D’s health would have deteriorated. The Care Provider has agreed to apologise for the failures identified and pay Ms C £500 for her time, trouble, and avoidable distress. It will also review policies, remind, and if necessary provide training to staff members about daily recording, updating risk assessments and care plans; and responding to complaints.

Summary: Mrs C complains about the standard of care provided by the Care Provider. The Care Provider is at fault for failing to retain and record interventions which has caused uncertainty about whether it cared for Mrs C’s mother, Mrs D, properly. The Care Provider has accepted some fault, apologised, agreed to pay Mrs C £500, and take action to improve future practice. To reflect the further faults I have found, the Care Provider has agreed to make further service improvements including reminding staff about recording contemporaneous daily records and completing nutrition and toileting plans.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Care Home. That is because the Council is completing a safeguarding investigation into the concerns.

Summary: Mr A complained professionals from a Council and Trust inappropriately interfered with his wife’s package of care when she left hospital in April 2021. We found fault in how professionals worked out what was in Mrs A’s best interests. However, on balance, this did not lead to an injustice.

Summary: We have found fault with St Augustine’s Care Home’s (owned by The Sisters Hospitallers of the Sacred Heart of Jesus) record keeping, communication around Mrs P’s end of life care, its visiting arrangements, and its complaint handling. CSH Surrey also missed the opportunity to assess Mrs P for fast-track NHS continuing healthcare. Those faults caused Mrs P’s daughters, Mrs M and Ms N, a personal injustice. The Home and CSH Surrey should apologise and carry out improvements to remedy their injustice.

Summary: We have found fault with St Augustine’s Care Home’s (owned by The Sisters Hospitallers of the Sacred Heart of Jesus) record keeping, communication around Mrs P’s end of life care, its visiting arrangements, and its complaint handling. CSH Surrey also missed the opportunity to assess Mrs P for fast-track NHS continuing healthcare. Those faults caused Mrs P’s daughters, Mrs M and Ms N, a personal injustice. The Home and CSH Surrey should apologise and carry out improvements to remedy their injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint, made on behalf of Mrs Y, about the Care Provider’s fee increase. There is not enough evidence that the Care Provider’s decision to increase the fee causes injustice warranting investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Summary: The Council was at fault for the time taken to assess Mr X’s needs under the Care Act 2014. As a result, Mr X had to wait longer than he should have for a completed assessment. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a payment to him for the distress he suffered.

Summary: The Council was at fault for delaying in putting in place a package of care and for failing to consider whether Mr X had the appropriate support through the care assessment. This meant Mr X had to wait longer than necessary to receive a package of care and cannot be sure the Council adequately considered his needs. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X, make a payment to Mr X and review his care plan.

Summary: We upheld some of Ms X’s complaints about her late mother Ms Y’s care in a care home. There was a failure to correctly interpret the signs Ms Y’s health was declining. There was also a failure to meet some of her needs around personal care and poor record-keeping. The Care Provider has already arranged training for relevant staff and apologised. It will offer a further apology to Ms X and review some of its record-keeping procedures.

Summary: The Council applied relevant guidance and its charging policy in Ms Y’s financial assessment. There is no fault in the way the Council considered Ms Y’s expenses when it calculated her care charge.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council mishandling a direct debit instruction to pay for Mr X’s sister’s care. This is because the Council has made a suitable offer to remedy the injustice caused by the delays and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about Mrs Y’s care when she had a period of respite in 2017 and 2018. There is not a good reason Mr X did not complain to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s social worker provision. This is because there is insufficient evidence of a significant injustice to warrant investigation.