Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Care Provider failed to provide suitable home support. There is either not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Therefore, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to assist Mr X with his housing situation. This is because the evidence shows the fault identified has not led to a significant injustice for Mr X. Further, an investigation would not lead to a worthwhile outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a blue badge application as there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Disabled Facilities Grant. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate the Council’s response to Mrs X’s concerns about her relative’s care and support. This is because we are unlikely to be able to add anything more to the Council’s investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions when they were sourcing a care home placement for Mrs X’s mother. This is because the Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction to investigate complaints that relate to actions taken during court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a social worker refusing to complete a reassessment of Mr X’s care needs after a change in his circumstances and about problems with his direct payments. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes.

Summary: Ms C says the care provider commissioned by the Council failed to provide adequate care to her father. There is evidence of the care provider, acting on behalf of the Council, failing to address issues relating to Ms C’s father’s presentation and health and failing to keep proper records. An apology and payment to Ms C is satisfactory remedy as another council is responsible for addressing the outstanding issues with the care provider.

Summary: Mrs X complained Berkley Care Active Limited failed to notify her of a change in her mother, Mrs Y’s care needs resulting in an increase in care home fees, or that it had applied for a Funded Nursing Care contribution on her behalf. She complains the Care Provider also failed to explain how the contribution would impact on the fees Mrs Y was required to pay. Mrs X has suffered an injustice as a result of the Care Provider’s failure to inform her of a change in Mrs Y’s care needs and care fees. The Care Provider has made an appropriate offer to remedy this injustice.

Summary: The Council was at fault for a delay in assessing Mrs B’s disabled parking badge application, which she made on behalf of her daughter. It has agreed to assess the application soon, and to make a small, symbolic payment to recognise Mrs B’s daughter’s injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s response to concerns she raised regarding her mother Ms Y’s care. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to provide a worthwhile outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr Z’s care assessment as it is out of time and there is no good reason to exercise discretion.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not submitting contracts relating to his late father Mr Y’s care during a court case, not giving him copies of them, and charging Mr Y’s estate for the care fees. We cannot investigate what the Council did or did not submit in evidence because that is something which happened in court. Mr X may complain to the Information Commissioner about the Council not disclosing the contracts to him and there is no good reason for us to investigate. We cannot reinvestigate the Council charging Mr Y’s estate for the care fees because we have already decided that complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint regarding the Council’s decision to request Mr X return overpayments he received meant to assist with his care needs. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly financially assess his daughter Miss Y’s disability related expenditure, and what her contribution should be to her non-residential care and support costs. The Council was at fault in how it considered this which caused avoidable distress for Mr X, and may have resulted in a financial loss for Miss Y. The Council agreed to review its calculations of changes to Miss Y’s financial assessment and apply refunds if needed, and offer to consider its decisions about disability related expenditure through its review and appeal processes. It will also apologise and pay a financial remedy to Mr X, review relevant policies and create guidance for its staff.

Summary: The Council acknowledges there has been a lack of clarity about the ‘Peace of Mind’ charge levied at the extra care accommodation and is now resolving that. There is no reason to waive the charge however as it is part of the service provided to residents.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award Mrs X with direct payments. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to concerns raised by Ms X about her father Mr Y’s care. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X complaint about delay in the Council completing a continuing health care (CHC) checklist for her mother. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused by the fault accepted.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s direct payments in 2021 because the complaint is out of time.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about items having gone missing while Mr Y lived in a care home, and the quality of his care. The courts are best placed to consider claims for compensation for lost possessions, and the complaint about Mr Y’s care has not yet been raised as a formal complaint to the Council.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s assessment of her late mother’s (Ms D) residential home charges following an overpayment of Pension Credit. The Council has since carried out a reassessment and accepted it miscalculated the date Ms D was eligible for Council funding. It has agreed to apologise and refund the late Ms D’s estate by the amount she overpaid during her lifetime. This is an acceptable outcome and so we have ended our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged delay in the progression of work carried out under a Disabled Facilities Grant. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the occupational therapist who assessed his mother. He says the occupational therapist did not communicate effectively and did not understand his mother’s condition. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging Ms X’s father for his care and support. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault..

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care needs assessment completed for Mrs X’s mother and about the Council not providing financial assistance with paying for her mother’s care at a nursing home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the alleged failure of the Council to conduct a proper investigation into respite care Ms X’s late mother Mrs Y received. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to provide Ms Y with a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to safeguard the complainant’s daughter. That is because we cannot add to the findings of an external review or its recommendations.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of care and support needs. That is because the complaint is late. Any complaint about care fees is outside our jurisdiction as the matter has been considered by the Court.

Summary: Mr R complains for his brother-in-law (Mr L) who has care and support needs. He says the Council failed to complete a mental capacity and care assessment for Mr L in a timely way. Mr R explains this meant Mr L’s eligible care needs were not identified and met by the Council when they should have been. Our investigation found the Council was at fault for a serious delay in carrying out these assessments. This resulted in Mr L not receiving payments to fund necessary professional care. The fault identified caused an injustice and the Council has accepted our recommendations to put this right.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of safeguarding concerns about his late mother, which he says caused unnecessary distress and prevented him from caring for her in the time leading up to her death. There were many failings in the handling of the safeguarding concerns, which caused avoidable distress to Mr X. The Council needs to apologise, pay financial redress and ensure Mr X’s comments on the accuracy of the safeguarding report are saved alongside the report.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his mother’s financial assessment and his complaint about this, which he says has caused avoidable stress and put him to unnecessary time and trouble. The Council has apologised for the delay in dealing with Mr X’s complaint and offered to pay him and his father £200 each. It continued to delay in dealing with the follow-up actions, causing further distress. It needs to apologise and pay further financial redress. It also needs to identify the action taken to prevent similar problems happening again.

Summary: Miss E complains about the role of the Council in her mother’s care. She also complains her mother did not receive good care at a Care Home before she died. We will not investigate Miss E’s complaint because we can see no indications of unremedied fault by the organisations and are unlikely to be able to reach different conclusions than those already shared with Miss E by the organisations.

Summary: Miss E complains about the role of the Council in her mother’s care. She also complains her mother did not receive good care at a Care Home before she died. We will not investigate Miss E’s complaint because we can see no indications of unremedied fault by the organisations and are unlikely to be able to reach different conclusions than those already shared with Miss E by the organisations.