Summary: The Council’s adult social care charging policy says it charges people for the expected costs of their care, and, if they receive less care than they paid for, it will only review their invoices and refund them once a year. There is no fault in this approach, as the law does not prevent the Council from taking it. However, the Council offered to review Mr B’s invoices more regularly if he wanted, and, although his daughter complained about the infrequent reviews, did not do so. This was fault by the Council. It was also at fault for its handling of Mr B’s daughter’s complaint. It has now agreed to consider offering Mr B more regular reviews of his invoices. It has also agreed to apologise to Mr B’s daughter, and to make a symbolic payment to recognise her injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed deal properly with the request for a discretionary property disregard for his father’s home, where his sister still lives. The Council has failed to give proper consideration to Mr X’s request. It needs to reconsider his request and address the issues he has raised.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of

Summary: Miss X complained on behalf of her son Mr B. Miss X said the Council funded Care Provider gave inadequate notice and reasons when ending Mr B’s contract. Miss X also said it failed to meet Mr B’s needs and failed to follow correct policies and procedures. We find the Council funded Care Provider was at fault for poor communication, poor record keeping and for failing to follow its values. This caused Miss X distress and uncertainty. We do not find fault with how the Care Provider ended Mr B’s contract or for the care it provided to Mr B. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice to Miss X.

Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council decided to offer Mr E temporary care at a care home or its attempts to find extra care housing for Mr E. The Council should have informed the family sooner that the care home placement had become permanent but this would not have made a difference to the outcome. There was no fault in the Council’s communications with the family, except that there was no record that the Council told the family what the care home’s rate was during an initial conversation. The Council has agreed to reduce the outstanding debt by the equivalent of two weeks’ contribution.

Summary: The Council acknowledges that it charged Mr B too much when it reduced the duration of his home care calls, and that it did not resolve this as soon as it could when Mrs B complained. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr and Mrs B and make symbolic payments to both in recognition of the distress the overpayment caused them, and the time and trouble they were put to in having to complain. However, there was no fault when the Council did not reduce the care package or the charges for an earlier period.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council pursuing Mrs B for her late mother’s care fees. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with actions taken by the Council. It would be reasonable for Mrs B to defend any court action taken against her if she believes she is not responsible for paying the debt.

Summary: There was no fault when the Care Provider failed to detect that Mrs Y had fallen in her room. It was wrong to use CCTV without permission and it has apologised and stopped this. The Care Provider should have ensured that it responded properly to her son’s complaint. Its shortcomings caused Mr K additional distress and frustration. The Provider has agreed to my recommended remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way a Mental Health Act assessment was undertaken. 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 about the Council not allowing Mr X to manage his own direct payments. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to proceed with proposed works to install central heating in his home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council failing to pay increased fees to a care provider or move the people receiving care to new accommodation. There is not a good reason for the delay. In any event, the matter is best considered by the courts.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council did not address her concerns about her sisters’ medication errors in a care home properly, and the Council did not share information with her when she made a complaint. We find no fault with the Council.

Summary: Mr D complained that the Council repeatedly failed to invoice him for his mother’s homecare. We found fault which caused Mr D significant inconvenience and frustration. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr D to remedy this and to agree solutions with the care provider.

Summary: We have not found fault in the way the Council carried out a financial assessment. There was some fault relating to the delay in carrying out the assessment. The Council has agreed to apologise, offer a repayment plan for the debt and remind officers of good practice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr B. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an ombudsman investigation. Further investigation by us could not add to the Council’s response or make a different finding of the kind Mr B wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged fraud by the Council because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and because we cannot achieve the outcome sought.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about matters relating to her father’s care home fees. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging Ms B for care in her supported living accommodation. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the Council’s actions to warrant an ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs C’s complaint that her late mother’s, Mrs B’s, care provider neglected her. This is because we could not add to the Care Provider’s response or make a different finding of the kind Mrs C wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the care fees paid by her mother Mrs X to the Care Provider being higher than its fee now agreed with the Council for the same placement. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Care Provider to warrant an investigation and investigation would not achieve a different outcome.

Summary: We found fault in North Lincolnshire Council’s failure to put support in place after it identified a resident needed it. We also found fault that North East Lincolnshire Council, Humber and North Yorkshire ICB and Navigo took too long to assess the person’s needs. These faults meant the person had to pay privately for support and suffered avoidable distress. The organisations agreed to provide apologies, financial payments, a fresh assessment, and to take actions to learn from these events and improve future practice.

Summary: Mrs B complains about nursing care provided to her mother Mrs C by the Nursing Home, about information the Council gave her about nursing home options, and how the Council handled a safeguarding referral. The Nursing Home has already taken some action to prevent recurrence, apologised to Mrs C and her family, and waived its fees. We found the Nursing Home did not keep detailed records about taking a urine sample, leaving Mrs B with uncertainty over what happened during this time. We also found the Council did not communicate clearly with Mrs B about safeguarding, and a delay in sending her the provider enquiry report. This meant Mrs B missed an opportunity to raise her concerns at the time. The Council and the Nursing Home have agreed to take action to address the injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains about how the Council dealt with the installation of a wet room funded by a disabled facilities grant for Y. The Council is at fault as it has not satisfied itself that the wet room as constructed meets Y’s needs and it did not satisfy itself that the works were of a satisfactory standard. This has caused uncertainty to Mr X which the Council will remedy by arranging an independent occupational therapist assessment to determine if the wet room meets Y’s needs and clarify the works it is willing to remedy.

Summary: Miss D complained about issues relating to her adult son’s care and support, charging and direct payments. We found any injustice caused by delay in re-calculating his contributions has already been remedied as the Council waived the contributions from 2019 to April 2022. Failure to organise training did not cause injustice to Miss D or her son. There was no fault in the rest of the issues Miss D complained about.

Summary: Miss X complains she was left without suitable care and support between April 2021 and October 2022. The Council has accepted Miss X was eligible for section 117 aftercare services under section 117 of the 1988 Mental Health Act during this period and was left without care and support. This was fault. The Council and Integrated Care Board have agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and provide evidence of service improvements to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: The Council was at fault for long delays in assessing Miss X’s need for replacement taps and installing them. This meant Miss X was without appropriate taps for over a year and had considerable difficulty in washing her hands. The Council should apologise, pay her £2,000 and review its processes.

Summary: Care provided to Mrs X during a residential respite stay was below an acceptable standard. We have made recommendations to address this.

Summary: Miss K is making a complaint about the care and treatment her father (Mr Q) received in residential care before he died. She says the Care Provider delayed in seeking suitable treatment for Mr Q and failed to consult with his family and doctor on his health decline. We have not identified any fault by the Care Provider about the issues raised by Miss K. We did find fault with information the Care Provider provided to the NHS about Mr Q’s needs to assess his eligibility for funding of his care needs. However, we cannot say whether Mr Q was eligible and therefore suffered an injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to place her father in extra care housing in its area because there is not enough evidence of fault. And we will not investigate the Council’s complaint handling when we are not looking into the substantive issue.

Summary: We found fault in North Lincolnshire Council’s failure to put support in place after it identified a resident needed it. We also found fault that North East Lincolnshire Council, Humber and North Yorkshire ICB and Navigo took too long to assess the person’s needs. These faults meant the person had to pay privately for support and suffered avoidable distress. The organisations agreed to provide apologies, financial payments, a fresh assessment, and to take actions to learn from these events and improve future practice.

Summary: Mr C complains about the care provided to his father when blood tests showed his blood was clotting too slowly. We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint. It is unlikely we could add to the information the organisations have already shared with Mr C. An investigation is also unlikely to find the organisations actions caused a significant injustice.

Summary: Mr C complains about the care provided to his father when blood tests showed his blood was clotting too slowly. We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint. It is unlikely we could add to the information the organisations have already shared with Mr C. An investigation is also unlikely to find the organisations actions caused a significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Miss X’s daughter’s care and support needs. She says the Council refused to provide the services she and her daughter needs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an adult social care financial assessment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council allowing a resident’s arrears to accrue to £52000 before agreeing to step in and fund the placement, and for only agreeing to fund the placement at the Council’s rate. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: Mr C complains the Council did not prevent the Care Provider from withdrawing its service and delayed in securing alternative support. The Council intervened after the Care Provider gave notice but delayed in getting replacement care, leaving Mr C without support for 10 months. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr C for the delay, pay him £350 and review policies.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council suspending Mr X’s direct payments. Any fault by the Council has not caused Mr X’s injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an Appointeeship because the Department for Work and Pensions are better placed to deal with the complaint, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr Y is seeking.

Summary: Mr X says the care home is a blight on the local area. We cannot investigate because the complaints are not within the context of receiving personal or practical adult social care.

Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her son, Mr Y. She complained about the adequacy of the Council’s investigation of her complaints regarding the support provided to Mr Y when he became an adult. There was no fault in the way the Council considered the complaint through the statutory children’s complaint procedure. There was delay in the complaints process and the Council should apologise for the uncertainty this caused.

Summary: We upheld complaints about personal care, cleaning, medication administration and support at meals. The Care Provider will apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr X to reflect avoidable distress. Appropriate service improvements are already in hand.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to offer a deferred payment agreement to fund his mother’s care until she sold her property. Mr X also complained the Council failed to complete an income-based assessment of his mother when it placed her in a care home. The Council completed a financial assessment of Mr X’s mother and offered a deferred payment agreement. We did not find fault with the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a blue badge application because the complaint is late with no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate now and it is unlikely we would find fault.

Summary: Miss X says she failed to receive appropriate support and assistance when she complained to the Council’s social services section about the Council’s repairs section. We will not investigate as we are unlikely to achieve anything further.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about works related to a disabled facilities grant. It is unlikely investigation could reach a clear enough view now. On the point about alleged damage, Mr X could reasonably take court action.

Summary: Mrs X complains there were failings in the care and support provided to her mother Mrs Y while at a care home run by the care provider causing pain and distress to Mrs Y and the family. We found fault as the care provider’s documentation was not always accurate and complete. The care provider has accepted the errors in documentation and already apologised to Mrs X which is suitable action for it to take. So, we have completed our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a social worker raising safeguarding concerns about Mr X. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding because it is unlikely further investigation would find evidence of fault or injustice.