Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about charges for care. There is not a good reason for the delay in bringing the matter to the Ombudsman.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the standard of care provided by a Bupa Care Home. That is because we could not add to any previous investigation by Bupa, nor would further investigation lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council failed to safeguard her mother. That is because the complaint is late.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charging for adult social care. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault or reach a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to allow the complainant to spend a Disabled Facilities Grant how they wish. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the care provided to Mrs X’s grandmother. There is not a good reason for the delay in her bringing the complaint to us.

Summary: We investigated a complaint about the care provided to Mrs D. We found fault with the Trust, who did not arrange mental health support for Mrs D while she was in the Queen Elizabeth Care Centre (QECC). The Trust accepted it was at fault. The Trust has agreed to apologise to Miss C and send the Ombudsmen evidence of what steps it has taken to ensure it doesn’t happen again. We found no fault with the Council, the QECC or the Integrated Care Board (ICB).

Summary: We investigated a complaint about the care provided to Mrs D. We found fault with the Trust, who did not arrange mental health support for Mrs D while she was in the Queen Elizabeth Care Centre (QECC). The Trust accepted it was at fault. The Trust has agreed to apologise to Miss C and send the Ombudsmen evidence of what steps it has taken to ensure it doesn’t happen again. We found no fault with the Council, the QECC or the Integrated Care Board (ICB).

Summary: Mrs D complained that the Council failed to provide suitable carers to meet her needs, failed to communicate with her properly about the difficulties in sourcing carers, and made inappropriate suggestions for alternative care. It also failed to deal with Mrs D’s complaint about the issue in accordance with its complaints procedure, causing a long delay and increasing Mrs D’s distress. We have found fault with the actions of the Council causing injustice to Mrs D. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs D £500 and improve its complaint handling for the future.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about a domiciliary care package. There is not a good reason for the delay in the complainant contacting the Ombudsman and we could not carry out a fair investigation now due to the passage of time.

Summary: Miss X complained the care provider wrongly placed restrictions on her visits to her grandmother at the care home. The care provider was at fault for suspending Miss X’s visits without putting in place a least restrictive option first and not telling Miss X the timescale for the suspension review. This caused Miss X distress because she did not know when she could visit Ms Y again in the care home. The care provider will review Miss X’s current visiting conditions and update its policy to include least restrictive options first and a timescale for reviewing suspensions.

Summary: Mr X complained about delays and the way the Council managed the care needs assessment process for his mother. We found fault with the Council for not properly explaining its decision about how it considered her care needs could be met, and for poor communication with Mr X. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy this injustice.

Summary: Miss X complained on behalf of her mother, Mrs Y. Miss X said the Council incorrectly calculated Mrs Y’s contribution for her care. The Council was at fault for delays in reviewing Mrs Y’s care contribution and significant delays in dealing with the complaint. It agreed to pay Miss X and Mrs Y £150 each to recognise the distress and uncertainty this caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to apply a land charge to the complainant’s home. The Council confirms it will remove the land charge which is a satisfactory remedy to the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care received by Mr X’s father in a Council commissioned residential care home. This is because we are satisfied with the actions taken by the Council when issues were raised, and we could not achieve the outcomes Mr X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial assessment for adult social care charges, and the Council’s decision about a deprivation of asset. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision-making process or reach a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to refund Mr X for an emergency pull cord service. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a blue badge application because we are satisfied with the actions the Council proposes to take to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council was at fault in the way it provided domiciliary care to her mother Mrs X as she was admitted to hospital because her pressure sores deteriorated causing distress. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. So we have completed our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly stopped his mother’s care. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to carry out a needs assessment for Mr X. This is because it relates to events that took place more than 12 months ago and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to have referred these matters to us at the time.

Summary: There was fault by the Council in its handling of the charges for Mr C’s non-residential care. This resulted in the issuing of an unexpected and incorrect invoice for more than £4,000. The Ombudsman considers that the Council is entitled to recover the corrected debt, but it should make a symbolic payment of £200 to Mr C for the distress caused to him, and payments of £200 and £100 to his daughter Miss B for her distress and time and trouble.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council maliciously failed to provide the care and support he needed since 2017. Mr X also complained the Council relied on a risk assessment that was based on inaccurate information and refused to amend it despite knowing the information was incorrect. Mr X said the Council colluded with other agencies to treat him with prejudice and discrimination. The Council failed to provide the reablement care it assessed that Mr X needed for six weeks in October 2022. There is no evidence this was done with any malicious intent. There is no fault in how the Council considered and updated its risk assessment. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him a symbolic amount of £300 to recognise the distress the missed reablement caused him.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council was at fault in the way staff at its care home cared for her father Mr X. We found fault as there were problems with the care given to Mr X. This caused uncertainty for Ms X. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and make a payment to her for the uncertainty caused.

Summary: Mr Z, on behalf of Ms X, complained the Council failed to provide her appropriate help and support to complete a financial assessment and did not include disability related expenditure in the assessment. While there is no fault in the assessment process there has been fault in the consideration of the disability related expenditure. To remedy this fault the Council will conduct a review and make a new decision.

Summary: Ms X complains on behalf of her cousin, Mr Y that the Council failed to provide a breakdown of outstanding charges for his care. We have found fault by the Council in the way it responded to Ms X’s request for information about the charges. We have also found fault with the Council’s complaint handling. The Council has agreed to apologise, review Mr Y’s support package, make a symbolic payment and service improvements to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: There was delay by the Council in carrying out a financial assessment. This caused uncertainty, as the complainants were not told in writing of the charge for non-residential care services until 2 months after they started using the service. The Council also took the charging start date from the date of assessment rather than 28 days after the request for the service. A payment, towards the financial loss and uncertainty, remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to meet her adult social care needs after her support package ended in 2021. She says the Council failed to put in alternative care and failed to complete a safeguarding enquiry and this has negatively impacted on her physical and mental wellbeing. Lack of an alternative care provider from December 2021 to October 2022 is due to service failure. There is no fault causing a significant injustice in respect of the safeguarding referral.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council did not properly deal with charges for her husband’s care. The Council agrees it is at fault because care charges were not properly explained to Mrs X and it calculated care charges incorrectly. Mrs X was incorrectly charged. The Council has agreed to refund all the relevant charges. This is an appropriate remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider’s alleged failure to safeguard Mr Y’s personal belongings. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to result in a worthwhile outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council refused to issue him with a blue badge and his wife with a companion bus pass. Mr X has now sent the Council the information it required and it has issued both the badge and the pass.