Summary: Mr X complained about the Council and the Agency which provided care to his late mother Mrs Y. He said care workers did not stay for the allocated time and invoices were inaccurate. He also complained the response to his complaint was inadequate.

Summary: Mrs X complains about how the Council arranged social care funding for her mother Mrs Y. She said the personal budget was insufficient to meet her care and support needs. The Council was not at fault.

Summary: The Council failed to ensure the care home had necessary equipment in place before Ms X moved in. It also failed to ensure Ms X had access to an advocate. It offered her options to enable her to move but the evidence shows she declined. The Council has now agreed to apologise for the failings identified, actively pursue a referral for advocacy and consider options for door widening if Ms X remains in her current placement.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council was at fault in the way it provided social care support to him causing distress and decline in his mental health. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council has dealt with these matters. So, we have completed our investigation.

Summary: Miss Y complains about the Council’s failure to complete a timely assessment of her care and support needs when she moved into its area. The Council acknowledges there was delay in Miss Y’s case and has agreed to backdate her direct payments to the date she moved into the area. The Council has also agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment of £500 for the distress this caused.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly declined his application for a toll bridge fee exemption. He said the Council did not consider his application as someone with a mental health disability in the same way as it would consider an application from a person with a physical disability. Mr X said he felt the Council discriminated against him as a result. We found fault by the Council. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X, provide a financial remedy and provide us with evidence of its service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about lack of care and support offered to Mr B. This is because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault to warrant an ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate the complaint about the application process for freedom passes. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because it will make changes to the wording on an application form.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about lack of communication from the Council regarding her mother’s, Mrs C’s, care charges. 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: Ms X complained about the way the Council dealt with her care and support needs and charged her for the domiciliary care provision she received. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council has dealt with these matters. So, we have completed our investigation. The Council is still trying to resolve issues relating to the most recent financial assessment and care and support plan review. We intend to allow that to conclude before we consider any matters relating to it.

Summary: Miss B complained the Council insisted her mother, Mrs C, returned home following a stroke and ignored her concerns. She also complained the Council delayed resolving who owned their home. She said this caused her distress and affected her relationship with her mother. During the Council’s complaint procedure, it recognised it did not take enough account of Miss B’s circumstances and apologised. The Council’s apology was a suitable remedy for the injustice caused to Miss B. In addition, the Council will provide staff training.

Summary: The Council accepts there were delays in financial assessments and reviews of Ms K’s care, errors in the transport provision, and a failure to carry out a carers’ assessment. It has apologised and reinstated transport. It will reimburse Mr X’s costs for the transport he provided and offer carers’ assessments to Mr and Mrs X. There was no fault in the calculation of Ms K’s contribution towards the cost of her care, however, and no reason why the Council should waive the outstanding contribution.

Summary: Mr G complained about the care and support provided to his late brother, Mr T, by the Council and the Home when dealing with his breathing and providing social stimulation. He also complained about the way the Integrated Care Board (the former clinical commissioning group) considered Mr T’s eligibility for healthcare funding. We did not find fault in the care and support arrangements provided by the Council and the Home. We found no evidence of fault in the way the former clinical commissioning group considered Mr T’s eligibility for healthcare funding.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s safeguarding investigations into his late mother’s, Mrs C’s care. This is because further investigation by us could not make a different finding or provide Mr B with the answers he wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms C’s complaint about lack of communication between her and the Council regarding Mrs E’s financial contribution. This is because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of care in a care home because the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: The Council delayed carrying out an assessment of Mr B’s social care needs and then failed to stay in contact with Mr B after it decided he no longer needed residential care and he could return to his home with a package of care. The Council then failed to consider how his needs could continue to be met when the move did not go ahead. It also failed to respond to correspondence sent on behalf of Mr B which raised concerns about the process. Mr B has since passed away and so it is no longer possible to remedy his injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr B’s brother and to take action to prevent similar failings in future.

Summary: Ms C complained the Council has failed to set up the agreed Direct Payment to pay her for five hours a week of support with regards to her father’s care. We did not find fault with regards to the decision that a direct payment was no longer required to support Mr F with social outings, once he had gone into hospital. However, the Council failed to communicate clearly with Ms C about this. The Council has agreed to apologise for this.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the care provider treated funded nursing care payments awarded to her late parents. The care provider was at fault. Its contract made no reference to funded nursing payments and it failed to explain how these would be handled and treated. So, Mrs X believed these payments would be deducted from the care fees. The care provider should pay the funded nursing care payments it received to Mr and Mrs Y’s estate. It should also review its contracts to make clear how it treats and uses a resident’s funded nursing care payments

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to suspend her direct payment. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr B says the Council wrongly decided to end a shared lives placement and, in doing so, failed to complete a mental capacity assessment properly. We have not investigated the complaint as we do not consider there is a worthwhile outcome we can achieve for Mr B.

Summary: Mr X complained about the quality of live in care provided to his late mother Mrs Y. The care provider was at fault for delay in signing Mrs Y’s contract, an argument between carers, poor record keeping, gaps with monitoring Mrs Y’s fluid intake, and not complying with its out of hours policy. The care provider has already apologised and refunded two weeks payment of Mrs Y’s care to acknowledge the impact of the faults on Mrs Y. However, the faults also caused Mr X avoidable frustration and time and trouble. The care provider will pay Mr X £200 to recognise the frustration, time and trouble caused and reviews its procedures for when accidents occur. The care provider has already reviewed its procedures to prevent a reoccurrence of some faults.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to adapt her wet room and provide a bath and high power shower. The Council has assessed the situation and determined Ms X’s current washing facilities are adequate and meet her needs. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached this view which included considering the impact on Ms X’s mental health.

Summary: Ms X complained the Care Provider breached the contract when a carer left her mother, Mrs Y, alone and so she should not have to pay any termination fee. While we cannot say the termination fee is not payable, we consider the actions of the Care Provider caused distress and put the family to significant time and trouble. The Care Provider has agreed to make a further payment to recognise this injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of the charges for his mother’s care, which he says put them to unnecessary time and trouble. The Council accepts it charged Mrs Y for care she did not receive. It has apologised and made changes to its process to prevent this from happening again. The Council was not at fault over the way it calculated the refund for the care Mrs Y did not receive.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about negligent adult social care. Negligence is a legal matter and not for the Ombudsman. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would add to the investigation already undertaken or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council made an erroneous decision about deprivation of assets when she transferred hers, and her husband’s property, to her son. Mrs X says this has caused her husband to incur higher care costs. We found the Council had not considered the full factors in its deprivation of assets decision. We also found fault with the delays in the Council considering the full relevant factors and the distress and inconvenience this caused. The Council agreed to our recommendation to complete a review of its decision, apologise to Mrs X and apply a credit of £500 to her husband’s care charges to address this fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant does not qualify for a disabled persons freedom pass. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs X complained about events leading up to her husband, Mr X, contracting COVID-19 and being admitted to hospital. These matters have already been investigated by the Care Provider and the Council has also carried out a safeguarding investigation. Both identified fault and the Care Provider has taken suitable actions to help prevent a reoccurrence. The findings of my investigation are in line with these two investigations and I can add nothing further.