Summary: Change Grow Live (CGL), acting for Cambridgeshire County Council prescribed long-term medicines (benzodiazepines) against national guidance and not in line with its own prescribing policy.

Summary: Mr X complained the Care Provider, Lincolnshire Home Care Ltd, wrongly accused him of abusing his late mother, Mrs Y. The Care Provider was at fault. It had no evidence which supported its allegations and it did not refer the matter to the Council’s Safeguarding Team for further investigation. It also poorly communicated with Mr X. The Care Provider has agreed to apologise to Mr X for the distress and uncertainty it caused him. The Care Provider will also review with staff record keeping, safeguarding procedures and effective communication to prevent a recurrence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an incident in a care home at this time. There are ongoing enquiries by the police and the Council, and until these processes have finished, we could not come to sound conclusions.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council verbally agreed her son’s one-to-one support hours would stay the same at a review meeting, but it reduced them and failed to inform her. This led to her using the direct payments for more hours than reflected in his support plan, building up debt against her son’s account. We do not find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in the Council responding to Ms X’s complaint about an incident which happened to her brother. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Ms X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to explain to Mr B what he said that it considers to be abusive. Although Mr B is frustrated by the lack of explanation, I do not consider that significant enough to justify an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: The Council acted appropriately to assess Mrs X’s mental capacity once it was aware she was placed in the care home for respite as a self-funder. It was not the fault of the Council that there was a dispute about her possessions.

Summary: There is no fault by the Council in its decision to stop a direct payment arrangement for care and support. The Council offered alternative care arrangements, which the service user did not accept immediately. The Council then put in place a managed account. The Council’s decision that the service user has not yet provided enough information on how direct payments have been used has been made without fault.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council refused to fund the additional care required to meet Mr Y’s needs. This led to the placement giving notice while Mr Y was in hospital and meant he was unable to return to the care home when discharged from hospital. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the requests for additional support and the Council was not at fault for the termination of Mr Y’s placement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charges for adult social care. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: The investigation into this complaint will be discontinued. The Council has not had the opportunity to investigate the concerns raised about the domiciliary care provided to Mr Y.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms C’s complaint about lack of contact and short notice regarding the cancellation of Ms B’s amended day centre hours. This is because the Council has apologised for cancelling the transport at short notice and explained what happened. We could achieve no more than this even if we investigated.

Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of her son, Mr Y, that Mr Y’s care provider, the National Autistic Society, failed to properly support him and manage his behaviour. She said her concerns about Mr Y’s escalating behaviour were ignored. The Council was at fault for failing to ensure it retained proper oversight of Mr Y’s care and support.

Summary: Mrs Y complains about the way the Council charged her mother when she moved to a care home, initially for respite. She complains about delay, an officer’s attitude and not giving her timely advice. The Ombudsman upholds the complaint. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council issued a backdated invoice in February 2022 for Direct Payments related to his care charges. We did not find fault with the Council backdating Mr X’s care charges.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X complaint about an assessment completed by an NHS Trust and about the Council lying about removing a risk alert on her records. This is because there is another body better placed to deal with her complaint. In addition, we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a debt for adult social care fees. The Council has acknowledged its delay, apologised, and offered a repayment plan if necessary. The Ombudsman could not add to the Council’s investigation, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about assault by an adult supported by adult social services. This is because there is not enough evidence the Council caused Mr B’s injustice. The Council is not responsible for the actions of the adult to who it provides care support. There is no evidence there was fault in the support the Council provided to the vulnerable adult.

Summary: The Care Provider failed to consider Mr D’s capacity properly when supporting him with his medication. It also failed to adequately support him with his nutrition. This has caused the complainants uncertainty about whether the care home could have prevented a decline in Mr D’s health. To remedy the complaint the Care Provider has agreed to apologise to the complainants, make them a symbolic payment, review procedures, provide staff training and remind staff about the importance of recording actions, assessing capacity and monitoring weight.

Summary: The Council failed to advise the complainant in enough detail and clarity about recouping direct payments. It also failed to provide advice notes for money paid into the complainant’s direct payment account. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to apologise to the complainant, pay him £150 for the uncertainty and anxiety the Council’s actions caused him. It will also review procedures about the process for recouping a surplus and remind staff of the steps to take in situations such as these.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about no longer being allocated to her previous social worker. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs A and Mrs B have complained about how a Council managed assessments for their parents, Mr and Mrs C. The Council has admitted fault and taken appropriate action to prevent the faults recurring. Therefore, the Ombudsmen will not to investigate this complaint as it would not recommend further action on the part of the Council.

Salford City Council (23 000 462)