Summary: Bentley Medical Practice most likely did not refer Mrs Y for fast-track continuing healthcare at the end of her life. Also, Shoreline Nursing Home’s record keeping was not in line with the relevant guidance. We do not know if Mrs Y would have been more comfortable before she died if not for that fault. Those organisations should take action to remedy the uncertainty that caused Mrs Y’s granddaughter, Mrs X.

Summary: Bentley Medical Practice most likely did not refer Mrs Y for fast-track continuing healthcare at the end of her life. Also, Shoreline Nursing Home’s record keeping was not in line with the relevant guidance. We do not know if Mrs Y would have been more comfortable before she died if not for that fault. Those organisations should take action to remedy the uncertainty that caused Mrs Y’s granddaughter, Mrs X.

Summary: Bentley Medical Practice most likely did not refer Mrs Y for fast-track continuing healthcare at the end of her life. Also, Shoreline Nursing Home’s record keeping was not in line with the relevant guidance. We do not know if Mrs Y would have been more comfortable before she died if not for that fault. Those organisations should take action to remedy the uncertainty that caused Mrs Y’s granddaughter, Mrs X.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council’s care provider, CM Community Care Services, failed to look after his mother properly, resulting in her being charged for care she did not receive. There were some failings by the care provider which put Mrs Y at risk of harm. The Council needs to apologise and waive £300 of her outstanding fees.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to ensure a young person, Miss W, continued to receive adult social care support and special educational provision when she moved into its area. The Council was at fault failing to ensure Miss W did not experience a break in her care services. This caused Miss W undue upset and Mr X avoidable frustration. The Council will apologise to them both, pay Mr X £400 total in recognition of that injustice, and review this complaint to identify points for learning and improvement. There was no fault in how the Council secured Miss W’s special educational provision.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has delayed in dealing with the adaptations to his home, leaving him without accessible washing facilities. There is no evidence of fault by the Council which has caused injustice to Mr X.

Summary: The Ombudsmen will not investigate Ms D’s complaint about the actions of the Trust and Council in relation to an assessment of her mental health. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would find fault in the actions of the Trust and Council.

Summary: The Ombudsmen will not investigate Ms D’s complaint that the Council and Trust held inaccurate information about her. This is because the Information Commissioner is the appropriate organisation to consider her complaint about records.

Summary: The Council failed to properly consider information relating to Mr X’s hidden disability when assessing his application for a blue badge

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a missing piece of furniture from a care home, and how the Care Provider on behalf of the Council has handled the complaint. This is because the complaint is a late complaint to the Ombudsman. Even if the complaint was not late we would not investigate because Ms B could take the matter to court to claim for the missing item, or make an insurance claim. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaint handling where we are not investigating the substantive matter complained of.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the standard of respite care provided to Mrs X’s late husband in a Care Home in 2021. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now.

Summary: We investigated a complaint about the care provided to Mr B by Kirklees Council and Tolson Grange Care Home. We also investigated the role of the NHS West Yorkshire Integrated Care Board who provided funding for Mr B’s placement. We found no fault with the actions of any of the organisations.

Summary: We investigated a complaint about the care provided to Mr B by Kirklees Council and Tolson Grange Care Home. We also investigated the role of the NHS West Yorkshire Integrated Care Board who provided funding for Mr B’s placement. We found no fault with the actions of any of the organisations.

Summary: We investigated a complaint about the care provided to Mr B by Kirklees Council and Tolson Grange Care Home. We also investigated the role of the NHS West Yorkshire Integrated Care Board who provided funding for Mr B’s placement. We found no fault with the actions of any of the organisations.

Summary: We uphold Ms X’s complaint. There was a delay in assessing Ms Y for social care support, a failure to issue a final care and support plan and a personal budget and poor communication. This caused avoidable confusion, frustration and distress and a loss of support. The Council will apologise, issue a final care and support plan and make payments set out in this statement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the support the Council provided Ms X’s daughter. The complaint is late.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to provide information about care charges. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault causing significant injustice and because further investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome.

Summary: Ms X’s representatives complained the Council had not properly considered the allowance for disability related expenditure when deciding the contribution Ms X can make to her care. The main element of the complaint related to the money Ms X pays to her parents for her board. The representatives said that as a result of what they consider to be the Council’s failings Ms X was made liable for more care fees than she should. There was no fault by the Council

Summary: Mrs P complained about the Council’s failure to carry out a proper assessment of her adult daughter’s care needs. She said this resulted in an inadequate support plan that did not meet her needs. We have found there was fault with the assessment. It was poorly written and did not address the issues we would expect. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X to acknowledge her time and trouble dealing with the matter and carry out a new assessment. It has also agreed to take action to improve its service.

Summary: The complaints’ father (Mr Z) said the Council failed by not allowing his daughters Miss X and Miss Y to attend a local community support service (the Day Centre) five times a week. Mr Z also complained about the way the Council handled his complaint. We found fault with the Council’s complaint handling. This fault did not cause Mr Z injustice. We did not find fault with the actions the Council took to meet Miss X’s and Miss Y’s care needs.

Summary: There is no fault by the Council. It made a decision there had been deprivation of assets in relation to residential care costs after considering the law, guidance and all the information supplied.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint that the Council did not give her mother, Mrs X, clear information about care charges. This is because the Council has agreed to a proportionate remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to carry out an assessment for Mrs Y. This is because Mr X is not a suitable representative for this complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council unsafely discharged her mother from hospital. Further investigation is unlikely to achieve anything meaningful.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to issue him a Blue Badge. This is because Mr X has since submitted a new application which the Council is currently assessing. We cannot intervene in the ongoing assessment or require the Council to issue him a Blue Badge, which is what Mr X wants.

Summary: There is evidence of poor complaint handling by the care agency and the Council into Mrs X’s complaint about poor care. Additionally, the Council failed to ensure Mrs X received all the care she needed.

Summary: Mrs D complains about the Council’s decision not to award her daughter a Disabled Persons Freedom Pass and its delay in dealing with her application. We found no fault.

Summary: Mrs X complains about a care home’s actions when her mother in law was admitted to hospital and after her death. We consider there was fault by the care provider which caused injustice to the family. The care provider has agreed a remedy.

Summary: Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust missed opportunities to assess Y’s Section 117 aftercare needs during late 2018 and 2019. It also failed to assess Y’s risk before he took Section 17 leave (while detained under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act). Also, Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council did not carry out a Mental Health Act assessment in line with the relevant guidance. The Trust and Council’s actions caused Y and his mother, Miss X, avoidable distress and uncertainty. Those organisations (and Greater Manchester Integrated Care Board) should take action to remedy their injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to reject Mr X’s blue badge application. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the care her late partner Mr Y received from the Care provider acting on behalf of the Council. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage to food in Ms X’s freezer, which she says was turned off by carers visiting her home. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and it would be reasonable for Ms X to make an insurance claim for any loss.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly decided his late father deprived himself of assets to avoid care home fees. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider refusing to refund care fees. The complaint is late, and there is not a good reason for us to exercise discretion to investigate it.

Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (22 010 640)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly respond to his queries about care fees. We found there was significant fault in the way the Council responded. We recommended an apology, a payment to Mr X and actions to review and improve the service provided.

Summary: there was fault by the Care Provider because it did not give Mr X the required one month’s notice of an increase in his mother’s care home fees. It also failed to follow the steps set out in its complaints procedure when it considered his complaint. The Care Provider has agreed to provide a suitable remedy for the injustice this caused.

Summary: Miss B, complains for her grandmother, Ms C, the Council placed her in a care home without explaining the charges she would incur and delayed undertaking a financial assessment. Miss B says Ms C lived in the care home for three months before the Council told her she would need to pay a top-up fee she could not afford. We found fault with the Council for failing to provide Miss B with accurate and timely information about the cost of residential care. The Council will remedy the injustice caused to Miss B and her family by its faults by apologising and cancelling the top-up fee.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of safeguarding concerns over his mother receiving a COVID-19 booster vaccination against his wishes. The Council has failed to ensure the safeguarding enquiries are concluded, which has left Mr X unsure whether the same thing could happen again. The Council needs to apologise, complete the safeguarding enquiries and take action to prevent safeguarding enquiries being allowed to drift in future.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint he could not visit his father, Mr Y at his assisted living complex during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. That is because this is a late complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse a blue badge application. There is not enough fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s process for adult social care charges because it is late.

Summary: Mrs Y, the late Ms X’s sister, complained to us about Ms X’s care, arranged for her by the Council and the ICB as S117 aftercare, and provided by EL Marsh Care Home. We have found fault by all the organisations because EL Marsh Care Home failed to: take adequate measures to protect Ms X from Covid-19; provide Ms X with adequate care from 5 August to 17 August and on 18 August; and provide Mrs Y with a proper response to her complaint. EL Marsh Care Home has agreed to remedy this by apologising to Mrs Y, making payments to reflect the distress, time and trouble its failures caused her and service improvements. The Council and the ICB have agreed to take steps to ensure they remain satisfied that EL Marsh Care Home can provide adequate S117 aftercare on their behalf.

Summary: Mr D complained the Council has failed to provide him with the care and support he requires. We found fault which caused injustice. The Council has agreed to take the actions at the end of this statement to remedy this.

Summary: We find fault with Select Primecare Limited, also known as Select Healthcare Group (the Care Provider) for banning the complainant’s representative (Mr X) from entering its buildings without a risk assessment and for the way it ended the complainant’s (Ms Y) residency. This fault caused Mr X injustice. We also find fault in the Care Provider’s refusal to accept findings of the Council’s safeguarding investigation but it did not cause Mr X injustice. We recommend the Care Provider apologise, make a payment for Mr X to recognise his distress and amend its resident agreements.