Summary: The Council was not at fault for how a care home, which was providing care to Miss B on the Council’s behalf, told her about potential charges and arranged the payment of an invoice. There was also no fault in how the Council considered her carer’s complaint about these matters.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about adult social care in a residential care home, because it is unlikely we could add to the Care Provider’s investigation or reach a different outcome.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint further. It is not clear Mrs X has given consent to the complaint on her behalf.

Summary: Mrs X complained about a delay in the service, commissioned for Mr Y by the Council, seeking medical advice following a sudden change in his mobility. She also complained about the response to her complaint about this. She says Mr Y was not the same person after these events and it caused the family “emotional damage”. We find the Care Provider did delay seeking medical advice and the Council’s safeguarding enquiry could have been better. We recommended the Council apologise, pay Mrs X £500 and reimburse Mr Y’s contribution to his care for a short period. It should also make sure safeguarding enquiries do not just accept a Care Provider’s findings without question. The Council has agreed to do this.

Summary: Mr X complains about the footcare provided to Mrs Y at a care home. The care provider employed a qualified footcare provider and took appropriate action to find an alternative footcare provider when Mr X raised his concerns. The Council is at fault as the care provider failed to give Mr X the opportunity to comment on allegations which led it to restrict his visits to a care home and check the accuracy of the allegations but this did not cause significant injustice to him. The Council is also at fault as it failed to include Mr X in its safeguarding investigation into his concerns about the footcare provided to Mrs Y and notify him of the outcome which caused some uncertainty to him. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising to Mr X and explaining the outcome of the safeguarding investigation. The care provider will also make service improvements as recommended.

Summary: The Council did not compel Mr X to accept care or tell him there was a compulsory care order. The Council recognises it could have taken a decision sooner about Mr X’s capacity to make his own decisions about his care and offers to credit some months of care to his current debt. It also recognises the distress caused to him by the delay in responding to his complaint and offers £250 to him.

Summary: Ms C complains about the Council’s financial assessments in deciding how much she must contribute towards the cost of her care. Ms C says she has suffered avoidable distress which has had a harmful impact on her existing health conditions. We have found no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr C complained the appeal to consider Ms B’s disability related expenditure did not properly address itself to the relevant issues. As a result she did not receive all the allowance she should. There was fault in the Council’s consideration of the appeal. It will calculate the amount of the payments Ms B should have received and make any payment to her estate.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly assess and meet his care needs since 2017. Mr X also said the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments for his disabilities, did not communicate with him and his representatives properly and failed to consider his complaint about the matters. The Council failed to review Mr X’s care and support in line with the legislation, to meet some of his eligible care needs and to properly consider his complaint about that matter. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X for the frustration and distress caused and pay him £1200.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about domiciliary adult social care. This is because it is unlikely we could add to the Care Provider’s investigation or reach a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about contractual arrangements. This is because it is reasonable for the Care Provider to use the dispute resolution procedures set out in the contract it has with the Council.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr B’s complaint about allegations made about him. This is because the actions complained about are not in connection with the provision of adult social care so are not within our jurisdiction.

Summary: Mr V complained on behalf of his late mother, Mrs R. He said the Council failed to correctly assess her care needs or provide her with an appropriate standard of care. He also said it failed to check the Care Provider had completed tasks in line with her plan. We find fault with the Council for completing short hours and for delay in investigating concerns raised. This caused Mr V uncertainty and put him to the time and trouble of complaining. However, we do not find fault with the Council in how it assessed Mrs R’s care needs or how it completed tasks in line with her plan. The Council has agreed with our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused to Mr V.

Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council decided to place her mother, Mrs Y, at Finborough Court care home, Stowmarket. Ms X also complained about Finborough Court’s decision to appoint her sister as Mrs Y’s essential care giver. There was fault causing injustice when the Council failed to adequately communicate with Ms X or involve her in its initial decision-making. The Council’s apology and improvements since Ms X’s complaint remedies her injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained about care charges imposed by the Care Provider causing financial loss and distress. We find no fault by the Care Provider.

Summary: There was fault in the Home’s administration of medication and its communication. The Home has agreed to apologise and pay a symbolic sum to reflect the distress its actions caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the level of care provided to Mrs X’s mother by a care home. This is because we do not consider Mrs X to be a suitable representative.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s financial assessment leading to her son, Mr Y, being charged the maximum contribution for his care costs. The Council has accepted it was at fault in the way it completed Mr Y’s financial assessment and has already taken steps to rectify this. The Council has now also agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X as it took too long to respond to her complaint. The Council will also complete the further training for staff on Disability-Related Expenditure and issue a reminder on the importance of responding to complaints within published timescales.

Summary: We will discontinue the investigation into Ms X’s complaint about the care and support received at an alcohol and drug treatment centre as there is nothing more we could achieve. The care provider has offered a refund for the days after Ms X left the facility and has explained why this is less than the amount Ms X sought.

Summary: We ended the investigation because it is reasonable for Mr X to go to court about money he believes Mrs Y should not have paid to the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council charged for home care services without his agreement or carrying out a financial assessment. The Council also continued to send him invoices for care services he had cancelled. We have found the Council to be at fault. We are satisfied Mr X would not have agreed to receive the care package had the Council acted correctly. To remedy the injustice to Mr X, the Council has agreed to apologise, cancel all outstanding care charges, make a symbolic payment and review its practices.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint, representing Miss X, about the Council’s decisions on Miss X’s Disability-Related Expenditures (DREs). There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made the DRE decisions to warrant investigation. Any delay in the Council reassessing Miss X’s needs and finances can be resolved by her or Ms Y asking the Council to conduct those reassessments, which it is reasonable for them to do. An investigation would not achieve a different outcome.

Summary: There was fault by the Council in its decisions about funding adaptations to Mr Y’s bathroom. There was also poor communication with him and his family about a step lift. The Council needs to apologise, make symbolic payments to reflect avoidable distress and time and trouble and take action set out in this statement.

Summary: The Council has implemented its own Blue Badge policy since the time of Ms A’s application. It agrees to reassess her application based on information from her medical professionals in the light of the relevant criteria.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council refusing to pay for a walk-in shower. Ms X could have complained to us sooner and there is not a good reason for us to now consider historical events.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms C’s complaint about the Council’s safeguarding processes. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council having caused a significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to reject the complainant’s application for a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs B complains about the ICB’s funding of her disabled son F’s care. She says the ICB did not fund enough care hours, so the Council paid for extra overnight care which meant it would not increase the respite hours for her and her son. Mrs B says this had a negative impact on her and her husband’s mental health and they lost out financially. The organisations acted with fault as they did not assess F’s needs for care and support in a holistic and multi-agency way in line with relevant guidance. They also failed to communicate with each other effectively. This caused preventable distress and inconvenience to Mrs B. The organisations have agreed to apologise for the impact of these failings on Mrs B, pay Mrs B a financial remedy, and take action to improve their processes when assessing Children’s Continuing Care.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed the assessment of his need for care and support. We have found fault by the Council causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising to Mr X and Mrs Y.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the standard of adult social care in a care home, because Mrs B does not have a significant personal injustice. The Care Quality Commission is already taking action to improve service for others; it is unlikely the Ombudsman could add anything further.

Summary: Mr Y, complained on behalf of his father Mr X, about the Council’s failure to provide information that long term care would be chargeable. We have not found fault with the Council in how it informed Mr X and his family about care charges. There was fault for sending an invoice in error after the service ended. The Council resolved this when challenged; this limited the injustice to Mr X.

Summary: Miss C complained about the Council failing to explain the costs of her father-in-law Mr X’s care package, failing to reduce the care package when Mr X requested and discharging him from hospital with no care package. This caused Mr X stress and care cost he could not afford. We find fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address this injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsmen will not investigate this complaint about a decision to detain someone under the Mental Health Act. We are unlikely to find fault in the actions of the Trust’s mental health team before the assessment. Investigation into the actions of the Approved Mental Health Professional is unlikely to find significant failings in the process they followed.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint as 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: there was no fault in the care provided by Saint Jude Residential Care Home Limited to the complainant’s mother or in its consideration of, or planning for, her care needs. However, its handling of Ms B’s complaint did not comply with its own policy on this and amounts to fault that caused Ms B injustice in the form of avoidable frustration. The Home will take the recommended action to recognise this and ensure it does not happen again in future