Summary: Miss X complains about the standard of care provided to her mother. She complains the carers failed to stay for the allocated time, failed to lock the key safe appropriately, and failed to provide care in line with her support plan. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Miss X by the faults accepted.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about the Council’s decision to treat his mother’s, Mrs D’s, gifts of money from the sale of her property as a deprivation of asset. This is because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an ombudsman investigation.

Summary: Mrs B complained about the Council’s charges for home care for her mother. We have found fault in the Council’s actions. The Council failed to send a letter when there was an underpayment, failed to carry out regular reconciliations and its communications about the charges was unclear and not transparent. The agency which provided the care also did not provide the information it should have provided.

Summary: Mrs B is the registered manager of an organisation that provides adult social care. The Council received concerns about the organisation and started the adults safeguarding concerns process. Mrs B complained the Council did not follow the process properly. She said the Council did not provide a time frame for its enquiries; did not give her enough support and refused to allow her to take on new clients despite her complying with the safeguarding process. Mrs B said this caused financial loss and damaged her organisation’s reputation. We found no fault with the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council delayed in arranging for Mr X’s property to be decluttered. That is because we are satisfied with the action the Council proposes to take.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about damage to a boiler. That is because claims for damages are best considered by the court and it is not unreasonable for Mr X to ask the court to consider his claim.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s decision to undertake a capacity assessment before allowing him control of his own money. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault having caused a significant enough injustice to warrant an ombudsman investigation.

Summary: The Council’s commissioned care provider (Regional Care) failed to contact the late Mrs X’s family or summon medical help in good time. The care worker acted unprofessionally and reacted hysterically to the news of Mrs X’s death which caused additional distress to Mrs X’s family. The Council has taken steps in line with its procedure and the care provider currently is suspended from taking new service users. In addition the Council will now offer Mrs X’s children, the complainants, £1500 each in recognition of the distress they suffered as a consequence of the care provider’s actions.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way a care provider, commissioned by the Council, ended its contract to provide care for her son. There was fault in the care providers actions, for which the Council is responsible. This caused Ms X considerable distress. The Council should apologise, make a symbolic payment to Mrs X to recognise the injustice caused, and take appropriate action to prevent recurrence.

Summary: The Council acknowledges there was an error in its calculation of the late Mrs X’s financial assessment. It has agreed to enable an application by her great-niece, Ms A, to become the administrator of the estate and so accept the back-payment due. There has been a delay on the part of the Council which caused inconvenience to Mrs X’s previous representative and the Council agrees to apologise to him and pay £300 to recognise the time and trouble he went to in resolving the matter.

Summary: Miss X complained about the care HC-One Limited provided to her friend Mr Y during his stay at a care home. HC-One Limited was at fault for failing to produce adequate care plans or offer care to meet Mr Y’s needs. This caused Mr Y distress and uncertainty. It was also at fault for failing to consider whether to contact Miss X about Mr Y’s refusal to accept some care. This caused her distress. HC-One will pay Mr Y £200 and Miss X £100 in recognition of that injustice. It has already taken some action to prevent the fault occurring again, but it will also remind staff they must offer the care set out in someone’s care plan and record doing so.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to arrange for another care agency to provide care to Miss X’s, for sending invoices to an incorrect address, and about an assessment completed in 2017. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome. In addition, Miss X’s complaint about the assessment completed in 2017 is late.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council charging him his assessed contribution towards his care costs. This is because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault with the way the Council assessed Mr B’s finances to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a member of staff from a care provider being rude during a telephone call. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Summary: Mr B complained on behalf of his brother Mr D and their parents, about matters affecting Mr D’s social care since Mr D turned 18. We upheld most of Mr B’s complaints. The Council accepted our recommendations, so we have completed our investigation.

Summary: Mr Y complains the Council has failed to deal properly with disabled adaptations to Mr X’s home, leaving him without access to adequate bathroom facilities for too long and putting him at risk of harm. The Council has delayed in providing equipment for Mr X’s bathroom, causing avoidable distress. It needs to apologise, pay financial redress and take action to provide the equipment.

Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s decision not to provide Mr X with formal support, despite assessing he had eligible care needs. The Council should have assessed Mr X’s daughter as a potential young carer while she lived with him. The Council’s decision to close the case before it had completed all agreed actions to help support Mr X was fault, which caused uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and reassess Mr X, his daughter and anyone else that provides him support.

Summary: Ms C complains about the actions of a social worker and the Council support after her discharge from hospital. Ms C says she suffered unnecessary time, costs and upset during an already difficult time. We have found fault by the Council in how it responded to Ms C’s contact about a meals service and her subsequent complaint but consider the agreed actions of an apology, £200 and service improvements provide a suitable remedy.

Summary: Mrs C complained how the Council handled a review of her brother’s, Mr E, care and support needs. She says the process took 19 months and the Council’s communication was poor. She also complained her mother’s, Mrs D, carer’s assessment was poor and the Council’s handling of Mr E’s direct payments was unreasonable. We find the Council was at fault for its communication and its lack of timely updates when dealing with Mr E’s review. It was also at fault for its handling of Mrs D’s carer’s assessment and for the way it handled Mr E’s urgent toileting needs. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: Mr Y complains about the Council’s actions in relation to the assessment and support planning for his partner, Ms Y. He also complains about problems with Ms Y’s direct payments. We find fault in all parts of the complaint we have investigated. The Council will apologise, pay £500 and review Ms Y’s case.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s record keeping, failing to notify her of safeguarding issues and spending funds without her consent. We have discontinued our investigation. This is because we cannot add anything to the Council’s investigation, because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and because there is a more appropriate forum to consider disputes about information.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to place a charge on Ms X’s property to pay for her care. The complaint is late.

Summary: There was no fault in how the County Council worked with the housing authority to get Miss B’s kitchen adapted. It is not clear however, that the County Council properly considered its power to intervene when problems with the work was not corrected for many months. I have not recommended the Council take action to remedy this, because, given the circumstances, it is unlikely it would have decided to intervene.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council had asked her father, Mr Y, to make contributions to his care charges that she said were unfair and which he could not afford. We found fault with the Council’s poor customer service and it agreed to provide a remedy for the unnecessary time and trouble caused as a result. But we did find fault with the approach taken by the Council towards calculating what Mr Y should pay towards his care.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how a Council carried out a social care needs assessment. This is because we are unable to achieve the complainant’s request to have the assessment deleted and also because it may be better addressed by the Information Commissioner.

Summary: The Council acknowledges there was a failure of communication and has amended its system as a result. It now apologises to Mrs X and will waive the invoice for Mrs X’s care charges.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s Supported Employment Service. The Council has accepted fault, apologised to Mr C and changed his support worker. The Council is monitoring the service and has provided Autism communication training to its staff. It is unlikely that further investigation would lead to a different outcome or achieve the outcomes the complainant wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a care home failing to appropriately administer prescribed medication to Ms X’s mother. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: The Council is at fault for delay reviewing Mr Z’s care and support needs and delay completing an NHS continuing healthcare checklist. The Council also failed to consider whether Mr Z needed adaptations to his property. The Council is not at fault for visiting too many times or for how an officer behaved during a visit in August 2021. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X and Mr Z £750, and act to improve its services.

Summary: The complainant (Mrs X) said the Council failed to follow the right process when charging her for care services. The Council accepted its fault and offered to waive Mrs X’s outstanding care charges and remind its staff of the need to provide advance information on charging. There is nothing more we could achieve for Mrs X so we discontinue this investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr and Mrs D’s complaint about the care and support provided to their son, Mr C by the Council, or their concerns that the Council has not taken account of their views. This is because the case is currently with the Court of Protection to decide where it would be in Mr C’s best interests to live.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council contacting him when he told it not to. This is because further investigation could not add to the Council’s response. We are satisfied an apology remedies the injustice caused to Mr B.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a discrepancy in funding for Mrs X’s late mother’s care. This is because the alleged fault would not have caused any injustice to Mrs X or her late mother.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about her late mother-in-law’s missing jewellery. This is because we could not make a finding on what happened to the jewellery, and it would be reasonable for Mrs B to make a claim against the provider if she believes it is responsible for the loss.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council wrongly advising Ms X about disabled facilities grants. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We found fault by the Practice and a care home acting on behalf of the Council with regards to how they managed Mrs H’s medication. We also found the care home failed to maintain appropriate hygiene standards at times. Although this fault did not have a significant impact on Mrs H’s care, it caused her son, Mr G, considerable confusion and distress. The Council and Practice will apologise to Mr G and take action to ensure similar problems do not occur in future.

Summary: The Council is not at fault in considering safeguarding referrals made by Ms Z and viewing camera footage as part of its enquiries. The Council is not at fault for considering Mrs Y’s care options including residential care. The Council is at fault for not considering Mr X’s complaint about the safeguarding process but this did not cause significant injustice to Mr X.

Summary: Mr R complained that the Council had wrongly charged his mother, Mrs C, for her residential social care after assuring him she would not have to pay. He also complained that the invoice was not sent to him until six months after Mrs C’s death. The Council was not at fault for charging Mrs C for her adult social care. The Council has accepted it was at fault for a failure to send an invoice for six months after Mrs C died. This fault caused Mr R injustice as he was surprised to receive it. The Council has agreed to pay Mr R a sum in recognition of the injustice caused.