Summary: Mr X complained the Council and ICB gave him conflicting information about how his relative, Mrs Y’s, care should be funded, and did not review Mrs Y’s care needs. We found the Council and ICB failed to work together to decide how Mrs Y’s care should be funded, and the ICB did not review Mrs Y’s care needs. We found this caused uncertainty and avoidable distress to Mr X. The Council and ICB agreed to take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Mrs C says the Council wrongly treated her as having deprived herself of capital to avoid care fees when she had only converted two disregarded life assurance bonds into one disregarded life assurance bond. There is no fault in the Council’s decision making process.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care because we can provide no remedy to the person who received the care as they have died. The Council has investigated and given a thorough response, which it is unlikely we could add to. The injustice to the person complaining is not significant enough to justify our involvement. It would not be a good use of our resource to investigate solely to get copies of documents for the complainant.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about safeguarding as it is late, with no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now.

Summary: Ms X complains the Care Provider failed to provide acceptable standards of care to her mother, and breached COVID-19 regulations. Ms X also complains about the Care Provider’s investigation into her mother’s fall and her death. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Care Provider for being unable to evidence how it has met the CQC fundamental standards of care, and for failing to provide some elements of care. The Ombudsman also finds fault with the Care Provider for failing to properly investigate the complaint. The Care Provider has agreed to make a payment for uncertainty and distress to Ms X, and implement service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an adult social care safeguarding enquiry. This is because we cannot be confident the vulnerable adult wants to make a complaint, or that the complainant is a suitable representative for the vulnerable adult in this case.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision making about Mr Y’s care and support. This is because we do not consider Mr X to be a suitable representative.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about what happened when Mr B and his wife moved to different accommodation provided by the Council. This is because: we cannot investigate some parts; we will not investigate parts which are late without good reason; there is not enough evidence of fault or of significant injustice in others; and we do not separately investigate the way a council handles complaints if we are not investigating the matters in them.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to no longer commission her daughter’s care from their preferred care provider. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint in connection with services received by Mr X at a day centre in 2019. This is because the complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints and there are no good reasons for investigating. Even if we exercised discretion it is unlikely, we could achieve anything due to the passage of time.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to carry out a proper assessment of Miss X’s mental health. This is because the complaint concerns the actions of the NHS and there are bodies better placed to address this complaint.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the charges for care and the care provided for her late husband Mr X. We consider there was fault by the Council because it delayed confirming the care contribution Mr X should pay. We consider the Council has provided a suitable financial remedy for the injustice by reducing the charge. The Council has also agreed a further personal remedy and service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider’s alleged failure to provide Mrs X with an income for her late mother Ms Y’s care. This is because the Care Provider has taken satisfactory action to address the complaint and an investigation would be unlikely to provide a worthwhile outcome for Mrs X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. This is because the Council has given a thorough response, to which it is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation can add or achieve anything further.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to complete home adaptation works to her property. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants.

Summary: Mr and Mrs F complained about the way the NHS Trust which was also acting on behalf of the Council and the Integrated Care Board (ICB), discharged their son, Mr D, from a community treatment order (CTO) in December 2021. Mr F said the organisations did not properly consider Mr D’s aftercare needs in line with the Mental Health Act 1983. We did not find fault in the way the decision was made to discharge Mr D from the CTO. We found fault in the way the organisations considered Mr D’s needs and this likely caused his parents to experience carer’s strain, distress and uncertainty. The organisations have agreed to our recommendations and will apologise to Mr D and his parents and make acknowledgement payments for the injustice caused. The organisations will also act to improve their processes relating to formal consideration of a person’s aftercare needs.

Summary: Mrs C complained about the care and support provided to her friend, Miss D, for whom she acts as an attorney. She complained about a lack of support and information sharing by the Integrated Care Board (ICB) when Miss D had to move from a residential care home to a nursing home. She said the Care Provider consistently failed to share information with her about Miss D’s care and support arrangements. She also complained about a top-up fee the Care Provider charged for the health-funded placement. We found fault in the way the ICB supported Mrs C when Miss D moved to the Care Provider’s nursing home. This likely caused Mrs C avoidable distress. We also found fault in the way the ICB and the Care Provider followed established guidance relating to care fees. This meant Miss D paid towards her care fees when the ICB was responsible for funding the placement. The ICB and the Care Provider have agreed to our recommendations and will apologise to Mrs C for the avoidable distress she experienced and arrange to reimburse her for the fees she paid on behalf of Miss D. The ICB and the Care Provider will act to improve their processes relating to top-up payment arrangements when a person’s nursing home placement is health funded.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council’s cleaning contractor disposed of nearly all Mr Y’s furniture and personal belongings when it cleaned his house while he was in hospital. The Council was at fault for not being clear in its discussions with Mr Y or in its instructions to the contractor.

Summary: We have not found fault with how an Integrated Discharge Team carried out a best interest decision about hospital discharge arrangements. There was fault by a Council with its communication with a relative, but it has already accepted the failing and taken action to remedy this.

Summary: There is no evidence the Council failed to offer an affordable alternative placement for Mrs X, or failed to explain the financial implications to Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the care her mother received before her death. The complaint is late.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the amount the Council pays for a resident it placed in his care home. The complaint is late and in any case, would be better addressed either by the Competition and Markets Authority or in court.

Summary: Mr C complains the Council should have challenged an NHS Continuing Health Care (CHC) decision and involved an Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (IMCA) at an earlier point. There is no fault in the Council’s actions. There were no grounds for the Council to challenge the CHC decision and Mr C has an independent appeals route. There was also no delay in the Council getting an IMCA.

Summary: Miss A complains about her mother’s discharge to a Care Centre from hospital. We will not investigate Miss A’s complaint because we can see no indications of fault by the organisations and could not add to the information the organisations already shared with Miss A.

Summary: Mr X complains on his mother’s behalf about the Care Provider’s handling of annual fee/charge increases and its explanations to his concerns about these. There was no fault as the Care Provider has complied with its legal obligations by giving sufficient notice of the proposed increases.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about her mother’s live in care provision. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Care Provider.

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

Summary: We found fault with the Care Home who did not keep accurate or up-to-date records. We also found fault with the Integrated Care Board who do not keep a register of patients receiving s117 aftercare in its area. We found no fault with the actions of the Council or the Trust. The identified faults caused avoidable distress and frustration to Mrs Q. We recommended an apology and service improvements to address the injustice.

Summary: We found fault with the Care Home who did not keep accurate or up-to-date records. We also found fault with the Integrated Care Board who do not keep a register of patients receiving s117 aftercare in its area. We found no fault with the actions of the Council or the Trust. The identified faults caused avoidable distress and frustration to Mrs Q. We recommended an apology and service improvements to address the injustice.