Summary: Ms C complains the Council failed to properly consider insurance premiums in a financial assessment and delayed in completing an assessment for her father’s care. The Council is at fault for failing to assess and provide a personal budget to Mr D. There is however no fault in the way the Council has assessed Mr D’s charge for residential care. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms C, make a symbolic payment to her for her avoidable time, trouble, and distress. It will also review its policies and provide staff training about the duty to assess and provide a personal budget.

Summary: Mr X complained the Care Provider did not provide the necessary care for his mother and breached her privacy and that it terminated care because he raised a complaint. The Care Provider’s actions caused an injustice to Mr X and it will apologise for the injustice caused.

Summary: A council tenant complained about the Council’s refusal to install an upstairs toilet in her property in view of her disabilities. But we will not investigate the complaint as there is insufficient sign of fault in the way the Council considered this matter.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint, brought by Mrs Y, about the Council’s decision not to issue him with a pre-payment card to access his funds. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating. The Court of Protection or the Office of the Public Guardian are also the bodies better placed to consider the complaint.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the way in which the Council handled her husband’s transition from self-funded to council-funded care. We find fault with the Council for poor communication, and failing to provide the care and support plan and financial assessment in time, causing her distress and frustration. We have recommended remedies for the injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an Adult Social Care financial assessment. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We uphold Mr X’s complaint about his son’s care. We found fault with the way the Council planned Mr Y’s care when he moved to new accommodation. As a result, Mr X and Mr Y experienced additional distress during an already stressful period. The Council will apologise and pay a total of £750.

Summary: Mr X complains the care provided to his Mother Mrs Y, was unsatisfactory. We find fault with the Care Provider for falling below the expected standards of service. We have recommended a financial remedy for the distress and frustration caused as a result.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly removed him as his son, Mr Z’s, personal assistant and reduced Mr Z’s care and support hours. There is not enough evidence of fault to start an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing Miss X’s disabled freedom pass application. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue Mr X with a blue badge. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: There is no evidence the Council can show it was able to offer a genuine choice of residential accommodation to meet Mr X’s needs when he was assessed as requiring 24-hour care. The Council agrees to waive the top-up fees payable from when Mr X went into the home until the date Mrs X joined him there.

Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council wrongly assessed Mrs D’s capital when her property was sold. This meant it treated Mrs D as a self-funder, liable to pay her own care charges for a year longer than she should have done. It also delayed in reinstating the council-funded contract and continued to send invoices to Mrs B. We found fault with the Council’s actions. If it had correctly assessed Mrs D’s interest in the property she would have remained on a council-funded contract and would not have had to pay any of her care charges beyond her assessed contribution. The Council has agreed to pay her a total of £3,500 and explain the recent invoice for £16,000.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to provide Mrs X with the home adaptations she was assessed as needing. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: There was a seven-month delay in completing a financial assessment for care home charges and inadequate advice about council funding which was fault causing Ms X avoidable distress. The Council has already offered £200 payment to recognise the distress and this is an appropriate remedy. To minimise the chance of recurrence, the Council will remind officers in the adult social care team to refer cases to the finance team when the NHS has withdrawn continuing healthcare funding.

Summary: there was delay and other faults in the way the Council carried out a safeguarding enquiry after Miss X reported concerns about the poor quality of care provided to her mother, Mrs Z, by a care agency. This fault caused avoidable distress and uncertainty. I also found fault in the way the Council handled Miss X’s complaint about this matter. The Council was not at fault for the time it took to find an alternative care agency to deliver Mrs Z’s care package.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an application for a Freedom Pass, because it is unlikely we would find evidence of fault. The available information shows the Council followed the correct process to reach its decision.

Summary: Mr F complained about the way the NHS Trust and the Council dealt with his adult son’s discharge from hospital to a supported housing tenancy. We found fault in the way the Trust acting on behalf of the Council assessed Mr F’s son’s needs and completed the support planning process. This meant Mr F’s son, Mr D, did not have the assessment of his needs properly recorded and reviewed in a person-centred way. The fault caused uncertainty to Mr F and Mr D’s mother, Mrs F. The Trust and the Council have agreed to our recommendations and will apologise to Mr D and his parents and make payments to acknowledge the injustice caused. They will also remind their officers about the importance of completing assessments and support plans in a person-centred way.

Summary: The Council acknowledges there were faults in the way it responded to Mr and Mrs X’s concerns about the use of the Direct Payments for their son. The Council should have carried out a Care Act assessment of his needs sooner. There is no evidence the family suffered any injustice as a result of that delay. However, there is some evidence of failure to consider part of their complaint which caused Mr and Mrs X some distress, and the Council agrees to recognise that with a payment.

Summary: Mr D complained through his representative that the Council’s commissioned care home failed to provide him with adequate care and about the way it gave notice. We found no fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care in a care home. The person using the service has died so we could achieve no outcome for them if we found the Care Provider’s actions caused them injustice. The Care Quality Commission has inspected and reported the Care Provider needs improvement and has a plan to improve its service. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would lead to a different outcome or add anything to the work already underway by other bodies.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that a Council officer was rude to him on the telephone. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the outcome of a Care Act assessment and transport arrangements to a day care service. That is because the Council has applied to the Court of Protection about the adult’s care and support needs. Therefore, we have no jurisdiction to investigate.