Summary: Mr X complained about the standard of care provided to his late mother, Mrs Y, at Cloverleaf Tanglewood Care Home. On the evidence considered the care provider was at fault for a delay in obtaining pain relief medication for Mrs Y and for failing to respond to the call bell in a timely manner. It should apologise to Mr X and make a symbolic payment. It has already reviewed its procedure for end of life care. It should also provide evidence of how it is monitoring call bell records to prevent recurrence of the fault.

Summary: there was no fault in the way the Council assessed Mrs Y’s need for home adaptations and decided on the relevant works for a Disabled Facilities Grant. Progress stalled because Mrs Y’s family could not reach agreement with the Council on the proposed scheme and therefore it did not proceed.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council’s Reablement Team took revenge on her after she complained about one of its assistants, by giving her caffeinated tea which made her ill. The Council upheld her original complaint and apologised. There is no evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice which requires a further remedy.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care provided at home. This is because we could not provide a remedy to the person significantly affected. Further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome; the Council is reviewing the Care Provider to improve service for others.

Summary: We found fault by the Council and ICB as they failed to put in place a contract or similar document setting out Mrs J’s rights and obligations in respect of a care home placement. This placement is provided to Mrs J as part of her entitlement to free aftercare services under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The Council will put a suitable document in place that sets out Mrs J’s rights and obligations as a resident of the care home. The Council will reimburse Mrs J for the professional fees she incurred in pursuit of this matter.

Summary: Ms X complains about an invoice she has received for care for her father Mr Y. We have concluded our investigation having made a finding of fault by the Council. Although Mr Y is liable for the care fees, we found the Council failed in its duty to appropriately inform Ms X about the liability. The Council have made a satisfactory award to Ms X to acknowledge the impact this had on her, and has made service improvements to prevent similar occurrences. We have therefore not made any further recommendations to the Council, and there is no further action to take.

Summary: Ms X complained the care provider failed to provide appropriate care and support to her father, Mr Y. The care provider was at fault for trying to take a blood sample from Mr Y without raising this with the GP, despite it being expressly stated that this should not happen in the care plan. In addition, there is no evidence Mr Y received appropriate mouth care on five days which may have caused him discomfort and which caused Ms X distress and uncertainty over whether proper mouthcare was provided. The care home should apologise for this and take action to prevent a recurrence of the fault. I have not made a finding on the cleanliness of Mr Y’s room or that Mrs Y was required to take washing home.

Summary: Mr X complained about how a care home arranged by the Council pursued him for money he said he did not owe. We ended our investigation as the Council proposed action which will resolve the outstanding issues and no further action by the Ombudsman was needed.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council failure to increase his care package. We have found there was no fault in the actions of the Council. It completed a thorough reassessment which included the views of Mr X and others. We are unable to challenge a professional judgment where there was no procedural fault.

Summary: The Council failed to accurately assess Mrs Y’s financial circumstances when she went into residential care. There are numerous and serious failings by the Council which demonstrate poor practice. This caused Mrs Y’s husband and daughter a significant and personal injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this.

Summary: There was no fault in how the Council carried out a safeguarding investigation or decided Mr X’s mother did not need an independent advocate. There was fault in how the Council communicated the closure of the investigation, and this fault caused an injustice. The Council has already remedied this injustice and has agreed to give further guidance to its staff.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not completing her care assessment properly as it failed to identify her care needs and that the Council failed to provide her with a copy of the care assessment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about her two week stay with the provider. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is not about actions that involve, or are connected to, the provision of adult social care.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about what the Council said about means tests for a disabled facilities grant and a health and safety grant. It is unlikely we could reach a clear enough view about what happened in 2020. The Council appears to have properly reached its later decision about how much Ms X should pay.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to deal properly with the charges for her mother’s care by failing to offer a deferred payment agreement and failing to take account of the costs arising from owning a flat before it was sold. The Council was at fault for failing to take account of the cost of owning the flat before it was sold. It needs to review the charges for the mother’s care, correct any errors and take action to ensure officers deal properly with this in the future.

Summary: Miss B complained the Council has failed to arrange the care package set out in her care and support plan. She also says the Council failed to stick to the communication plan it agreed following a previous Ombudsman’s decision. We find the Council was at fault for its delays in securing the care package. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: There were delays and errors in the way the Council handled the accrual of debt for Mrs A’s late mother Mrs X. The Council has apologised to Mrs A and taken some steps to improve services but should go further to recognise the distress she was caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to provide information about a relative’s historical adult social care debt, because it is a late complaint and there is no good reason the complainant could not have made the complaint sooner.

Summary: There was a delay in the Council’s reassessment of Mrs B’s needs following a change in her circumstances. Mx B raised a safeguarding concern as a result. The Council undertook a reassessment and additional care was put in place to meet Mrs B’s increased needs. The Council will now recognise the difficulties which were caused for Mrs B and her family by the delay.

Summary: There was fault in the way the Council decided to reduce Mrs B’s care package. The Council failed to properly consult with Mrs B or with the care agency that provided the care and failed to properly consider Mrs B’s needs. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay a small financial remedy and carry out a review of the care plan.

Summary: The Ombudsmen will not investigate this complaint about the actions by a Council and NHS Trust in discharging Mrs Y from hospital and rehabilitation placement. This is because Mrs Y had capacity to make decisions about her care and it is unlikely we would find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a care provider giving notice to end Ms X’s mother’s care package and that the care provider shared information with third parties inappropriately. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, another body is better placed to consider her complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint alleging the Council failed to tell the complainant about top up fees or provide details of care homes without top up fees. This is because this complaint is about events which took place more than 12 months ago and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate them now.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about delays in a social worker completing a continuing healthcare checklist, of the outcome of the checklist, and of poor communication. This is because another body is better placed to consider the complaint. In addition, an investigation would not lead to different outcomes or findings.

Summary: Miss X complained on behalf of her uncle, Mr B. Miss X said the Council failed to consider Mr B’s care and support needs and failed to properly explain care costs and contributions. Miss X also said it took too long to respond to her complaint. We find the Council was at fault for failing to properly explain the costs of care. It was also at fault for failing to complete a timely financial assessment with Mr B and for taking too long to deal with the complaint. This caused Mr B distress and uncertainty. It also caused Miss X, distress, uncertainty, and inconvenience. We do not find fault with the Council for how it considered Mr B’s support and care needs. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice.

Summary: We investigated a complaint about the care provided to Mr D by Plymouth City Council and Livewell Southwest. We found no fault by either organisation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Council arranging for Mr X’s mother to move to another council area. This is because an investigation would not lead to any worthwhile outcomes.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to arrange physiotherapy for his late mother when the Council arranged her placement into a care home. We will not investigate as this complaint was received outside our usual 12-month time period for investigating. And I have seen no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council placing Ms X’s mother in accommodation that does not meet her needs and ignoring her mother’s wishes to go home. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different outcomes or findings.

Summary: We did not uphold most complaints about Mrs Y’s care between January and the end of October 2020. However, she had significant weight loss with no action taken and this was not in line with guidance on nutritional care. The Council which commissioned the care will apologise and take action described in this statement. We did not uphold complaints about the deprivation of liberty safeguards or safeguarding because the Council followed the appropriate legal process.