London Borough of Croydon (22 002 639)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council commissioned care home, failed to provide her mother, Mrs Y, with appropriate care and support which led to a hospital admission and the Council failed to carry out a safeguarding investigation about this. The care provider was at fault for poor record keeping. The Council was also at fault for poor communication, failure to undertake a formal safeguarding investigation and delays in responding to Mrs X’s complaint. This caused Mrs X and Mrs Y distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment and provide evidence it has undertaken further staff training in safeguarding.

Summary: Mr A has complained about a Council and a Trust in relation to his brother, Mr B’s care and support in 2021. I found fault with the Trust in relation to Mr B’s discharge in August 2021. I did not find fault with the Trust or the Council in the other aspects of this complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council charging his father for care. Mr X said they were told there would be no cost involved in placing his father into care. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about safeguarding action taken by the Council in relation to his friend, Mr Y’s finances. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an incident between Ms X and a carer. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council rejecting Mr X’s blue badge application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with the way the Council made its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care provision at home. This is because we are unlikely to find fault or reach a different outcome.

Summary: Miss C complained that the Council moved her mother, Mrs E back to a flat without care or support and without carrying out the proper assessments or informing Miss C. Mrs E was found in the property shortly afterwards having fallen and been on the ground for some time. The flat was without heating, hot water, food or bedding. Mrs E was admitted to hospital and Miss C experienced significant distress and inconvenience in trying to resolve the matter. We have found the Council was at fault for moving Mrs E without carrying out a care needs assessment or a mental capacity assessment, for a lack of management oversight and for failing to involve or inform Miss C in the decision. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss C, pay her some money and improve its procedures for the future.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider’s alleged failure to properly care for Mrs X’s mother Mrs Y. This is because we would be unlikely to provide a worthwhile outcome for Mrs X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council delaying in telling Mrs X her son no longer needed to pay a client contribution towards the cost of his care. 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: Mrs X complains the Council’s care provider, Eden Futures, has failed to meet her son’s needs and despite the Council upholding many of her complaints about this in December 2022, her son continues to lack support, leaving him at risk of harm. The Council has taken action to ensure Eden Futures improves its working practices and can evidence providing Mr Y with the support he has been assessed as needing. Nevertheless, the Council needs to make a symbolic payment to Mr Y to reflect the lack of support he experienced and any harm he was caused. It also needs to send Mrs X an effective apology.

Summary: There was fault by the Council. It failed to fully engage with its duties when Mr B raised several serious concerns about his brother’s care. It failed to make sure that the care met the expected standards. The Council has agreed to take action to put things right.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Care Provider failed to provide the necessary wound care for her mother, Mrs Y, during her respite stay. We find the Care Provider’s actions caused an injustice. We make several recommendations to address this injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about residential care and care charges because it is late without good reason to investigate the complaint now.

Summary: Mr X complained about the overall lack of care and support he has received from the Council. We find the Council was at fault for telling Mr X it would suspend his direct payments if he did not register with a GP. This caused significant stress to Mr X. To address this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise.

Summary: Mr F complains the Council failed to put his care and support in place, causing him to lack support and causing distress to him and his family who have had to care for him. We found fault which caused injustice to Mr F and his family. The Council has agreed to make a payment to them to remedy this, issue an updated care and support plan and consider whether a mental capacity assessment is necessary.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council arranged a home care package for her husband, Mr Y between May and July 2022 whilst she was in hospital. Mrs X said she was unaware of the care package arrangements. There was no fault in how the Council arranged the care package or around how it assessed Mr Y's mental capacity. However, the Council sent details about the financial assessment to an incorrect email address for Mrs X which was fault. On balance, Mrs X would have cancelled the care package sooner had that fault not occurred. The Council agreed to waive part of Mr Y’s outstanding fees to acknowledge the injustice this caused.

Summary: Mrs W complains on behalf of her sister, Miss Z, about the risk she has experienced since moving into a supported living placement last year. We find the Council failed to properly consider and assess both the possible and known risks before placing the residents together. We also find the Council has failed to take action to remove the risk despite agreeing to move the other resident, Mr Y. The Council will remedy the injustice caused by fault with the actions listed at the end of this statement.

Summary: Mr X complained about the quality of works completed by a contractor for the installation of his wet room under a disabled facilities grant. He also said his signature was forged and stated he had not signed off on works being complete. We find the Council was at fault for failing to respond to some of his requests and for failing to record all communication correctly. This caused significant stress to Mr X. To remedy the injustice caused by fault, we recommended the Council apologise.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Provider discharging Ms B early from a treatment service. This is because the complaint is not about actions that involve, or are connected to, the provision of adult social care. So, we have no power to investigate the complaint.

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 this complaint about the Council advising Mr X’s family of the wrong care charges. He says the Council told them the care charge was per week, not per day. He also complains the care provided to his grandmother was inadequate. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the other complaint elements are late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaints.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider acting on behalf of the Council’s alleged failure to properly safeguard Mr X’s mother’s Mrs Y’s personal belongings. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council ignoring Mrs X’s substantial disability and its impact on her during its consideration of her blue badge application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s request to the Council for her personal data. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed.

Summary: We found fault by a Trust with regards to how it handled concerns about Mrs P’s mental health. The Trust will apologise to Mrs P and take action to prevent similar problems occurring in future. We also found fault by the Council with regards to the record keeping of its Mental Health Duty Team. However, we found no fault with the care provided by that team or the Approved Mental Health Practitioner service.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council commissioned care provider failed to deliver the full hours of support they were contracted to provide to their relative Miss Y. The Council was at fault. It failed to ensure Miss Y received her full hours of support, failed to address Mr and Mrs X’s concerns in a timely manner and for poor quality care needs assessments and support plans. It has agreed to apologise, make payments and review Miss Y’s care and support plan. It has also agreed to remind officers to escalate concerns to complaints where appropriate. It has already taken appropriate action to address the care provider’s poor recording practices and the delays in the complaints process.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council commissioned care provider failed to deliver the full hours of support they were contracted to provide to their relative Miss Z. The Council was at fault. It failed to ensure Miss Z received her full hours of support, failed to address Mr and Mrs X’s concerns in a timely manner and for poor quality care and support plans. It has agreed to make a payment and review Miss Z’s care and support plan. It has also agreed to remind officers to escalate concerns to complaints where appropriate. It has already taken appropriate action to address the care provider’s poor recording practices and the delays in the complaints process.

Summary: There was fault in the way the Council assessed Mr C’s finances as the Council has not demonstrated how it assessed the affordability of the contribution it expects Mr C to make to the cost of his care package. The Council has agreed to apologise, re-asses Mr C’s finances and pay a symbolic payment.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to treat some of the expenditure of her mother Mrs Y’s capital as a deprivation of assets and notional capital in its calculation of her care fee contributions. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that a care provider failed to meet her mother’s care needs. She says her mother’s care plan stated support was needed with household cleaning, but her mother’s kitchen was left in a filthy state. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

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

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the standard of care at a respite placement after she had an operation. There is not enough evidence of actions by the care provider causing the injustices claimed, and insufficient personal injustice to her caused by other complaint issues, to warrant us investigating.