Summary: Mr R said the Council was at fault for failures in its care for his stepson Mr C. He also complained about poor communication. The Council was at fault for failures in its care for Mr C and its communication with Mr and Mrs R. These failures caused injustice to Mr C who became unwell after a failure to give him prescribed medication and to Mr and Mrs R who were excluded from discussions about Mr C’s care. The Council has agreed to pay Mr and Mrs R a sum in recognition of their distress and to investigate the standard of care at a care facility where Mr C lived.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council Officer’s behaviour during a home visit. The Council has already apologised to Mr X, that remedies any injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs D’s complaint about the Council charging the late Mrs C for care. This is because further investigation could not add to the Council’s response or make a different finding of the kind Mrs D wants.

Summary: Ms Y complained on behalf of Mr and Mrs X that the Council stopped face-to-face contact with their son, Mr Z, failed to keep that decision under review and did not provide Mr and Mrs X with accurate updates as agreed. The Council was not at fault for stopping face-to-face contact at the start of the pandemic. However, it was at fault from June 2020 when it failed either to restart contact or apply to the Court of Protection for a variation to the contact arrangements. This also meant it failed to have due regard for Mr and Mrs X’s human rights. This caused Mr and Mrs X distress and frustration. The Council has agreed to pay them X £300 to remedy this injustice. There was no fault in the updates Mr and Mrs X received.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the care provided to her mother, Mrs Y, at a Council commissioned care home. The care provider was at fault for not having proper records of the care it gave to Mrs Y. There was also fault in the care it gave to Mrs Y before she went to hospital. This impacted Mrs Y’s dignity and comfort and caused Mrs X distress and uncertainty about the care provided. The care provider has acknowledged these concerns. The Council have agreed to provide Mrs X and Mrs Y with a financial remedy to properly recognise the injustice and take action to improve the care home’s record keeping.

Summary: There was poor communication and lack of transparency in the Council’s financial assessment of Miss C. The Council failed to review Miss C’s direct payments on a yearly basis. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy and review the financial assessment and direct payments.

Summary: Mr X complains that by only offering him £250, the Council has failed to properly recognise the problems it caused by failing to accept his mother’s eligibility for COVID-19 funding. Based on the evidence seen so far, Mr X has been put to significant time and trouble and caused avoidable distress by the Council’s action. It needs to pay him £600 to reflect this.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about care charges. This is because the matter has been resolved prior to our involvement.

Summary: Mrs X complained at the way the Council dealt with Mrs Y’s need for residential care and charging for this. She said she had no choice but to place Mrs Y in a home of her choice because the Council did not act, and she should not pay a top up for this. We find the Council was not at fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about defamation of character. The outcomes sought can only be determined in court, and it is reasonable to expect Ms B to take that action.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about deprivation of assets to avoid care charges. That is because we are satisfied with the action the Council has agreed to take.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to manage the person’s needs in the Mental Health Team. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. Without fault in the way it made a decision, we cannot question the decision itself.

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: Mr B complained the Council discharged his father in to his and his mother’s care despite them not agreeing to care for him. He said this put his mother at risk of harm from abuse and physical injury. He complained the Council did not provide support or respite. He said caring for his father meant he had to give up his job and negatively impacted his well-being. The Council apologised for its delay arranging to review Mr B’s carers assessment. We found no other fault by the Council and consider its apology a suitable remedy for the injustice to Mr B and Mrs C by its delay.