Summary: Mr X complained the Council commissioned care provider, Edenmore Nursing Home, unfairly evicted his mother, Mrs J and did not treat her with respect. Mr X complained the Council did not tell the family when Mrs J would move, so they were unable to be with her to assist with her move and settling at the new home. We found the care provider did not treat Mrs J with dignity and respect, the Council delayed in responding to the termination of the care contract and both delayed in responding to complaints about the same, which caused Mr X frustration and distress, and Mrs J distress. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and take action to improve its service.

Summary: Mr C complains about the Council’s failure to provide him with housing and care. Mr C says the Council has not properly considered his debt for care charges and did not deal with his complaint properly. The Council is at fault for providing wrong information in its complaint response and in fettering its discretion in its assessment of charge. The Council is not at fault for failing to provide housing or care. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr C, reconsider his assessment of charge, and review its charging policy.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Care Provider failed to provide her mother, Mrs Y, with an acceptable level of care when she stayed at the care home for respite. The Care Provider failed to provide personal care and pressure care during Mrs Y’s stay. It delayed getting medical attention when her health declined and failed to provide the necessary information to emergency services. The Care Provider will apologise, pay for the injustice caused and provide evidence of the training given to staff to prevent reoccurrence of the failures.

Summary: There is no evidence the care provider failed in its management of Mrs X’s care and treatment.

Summary: There is no evidence the Council was at fault in the way it reached its decision about a deprivation of assets.

Summary: Mr C complained that the Council failed to properly communicate with him about funding for his aunt’s (Mrs D’s) care home fees. This caused him distress and uncertainty about whether she would have to move and how much it would cost. We found the Council delayed in reaching a clear decision on Mrs D’s case and failed to communicate adequately with Mr C. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr C, pay him £300 and improve its procedures for the future.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care fee rates. This is because we cannot say how much the Council should pay the Care Provider. It is reasonable to expect the Care Provider to take the Council to court to settle the dispute.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an occupational therapy assessment and Disabled Facilities Grant request. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: There was fault by the Council which failed to consult Mr X about his late mother’s care. This caused avoidable distress. The Council needs to apologise and remind staff of the relevant sections in the Code of Practice to the Mental Capacity Act which set out the people that need to be consulted.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about lack of care provided to Mr B prior to his death in October 2021. This is because further investigation could not add to the Council’s response or make a different finding of the kind his daughter, Ms C wants. There is no good reason for us to disapply the law to investigate this late complaint now.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the care provided to his relative by their care provider. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council attempted to steal money from her by changing her direct debit payment. This is because the matter complained about did not cause Mrs X any significant personal injustice which is serious enough to warrant an investigation. The Council has provided a suitable remedy for its fault by apologising to Mrs X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about support managing an adult social care direct payment. This is because the Council has accepted where it was at fault, recognised this had an impact on the complainant, and has apologised. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken. There is no continuing injustice to warrant any further investigation.

Summary: We found fault in the process a Trust followed before discharging an elderly woman from hospital to her own home. While it carried out proportionate assessments of her needs it did not hold adequate discussions with the patient and her family about how those needs would be met. This caused avoidable frustration and has left uncertainty, for which the Trust has agreed to apologise. We have not found fault in the way the Council checked the woman’s support package in the days following her return home. We found the Council was at fault for failing to respond to a complaint within the agreed timeframe. However, we have not been able to link this to a specific injustice.

Summary: Ms C complained on behalf of her mother, Mrs D that the Council had delayed in carrying out an assessment of her care needs, failed to properly include Ms C in the process or provide explanations for its decisions. It also delayed in providing information about a housing needs report and in responding to Ms C’s complaint about the issues. We found some fault in the Council’s actions. The Council has agreed to pay £300 to Ms C, £400 to Mrs D and improve its procedures for the future.

Summary: There is no fault by the Council in levying a charge for Mr Y’s domiciliary care.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding. The Council has referred the matter to the Court of Protection. The Court is best placed to consider the safeguarding concerns.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about proposed changes to adult social care direct payments, and delay in responding to a complaint. There is no fault in a council proposing to make a change, and at this point there is no injustice caused by the proposal. We would not investigate the complaint handling separately and it does not cause significant injustice to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms X’s mother’s jewellery being stolen, or lost by the care provider, during her mother’s stay in a care home. This is because it is reasonable for Ms X to continue legal proceedings and take the matter to Court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council regarding Mr X. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an ombudsman investigation. Some of the matters have previously been considered by us and we cannot investigate the same matters again.

Summary: The care provider did not always give a good standard of care and treatment to Mr X. There is evidence of an inappropriate diet, late response to the development of a pressure sore, and some poor practice in relation to medication administration. The care provider has already apologised for some matters but should offer a partial fee refund to Mr X in recognition of the poor care and take steps to review its practices.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions as a court appointed deputy for finances. The Office of the Public Guardian supervise deputies so are better placed to consider this complaint.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council was at fault in the way it moved his father Mr Y, from residential care to supported living which was not in his best interest as Mr Y’s health declined and he passed away. Mr X also complains the Council depleted Mr Y’s finances and failed to help him apply for benefits leaving him with little money when he died causing distress to the family. 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 this complaint about adult social care financial assessment. This is because there is no remaining significant injustice since the NHS is now paying all the care charges. There is no worthwhile outcome from an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of her care and support needs. This is because the Council has offered to carry out a reassessment of her needs and it is reasonable to expect Ms X to engage with this before we will consider her complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council assessed the complainants care needs and disability related expenditure. This is because the issues raised happened too long ago and I see no good reason to exercise discretion and investigate them now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in adult social care provision. This is because the adult has died, so we can achieve no worthwhile outcome for them now. The injustice to the complainant would not justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in the Council completing Mr X’s stepfather’s financial assessment. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: There was fault in the way the care home monitored and recorded Mr D’s nutrition, liquid intake and blood glucose regulation. There was fault in its communications with the family about Mr D’s health and the response to the complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay the family £300.

Summary: Ms C complains the Council failed to provide a direct payment to pay towards the cost of a live in carer for her mother, Mrs D. The Council is at fault for not properly considering Ms C’s request. However we cannot say on balance this would have caused Mrs D additional financial injustice. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs D, make a symbolic payment to Ms C for her time, trouble, and distress. It will also remind and where necessary provide staff training about the completion of assessments and setting personal budgets.

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his late friend, Mr Y. He said the Council, when acting as Deputy, did not act in Mr Y’s best interests when it decided to cancel his life insurance policies. We have found no fault with the Council’s actions

Summary: Mrs X complained a council care home failed to provide a refund for the final invoice issued following her father-in-law passing away. Mrs X complained the care home has now revised the final bill to show a debit balance. We found fault with the Council failing to ensure accuracy of the billing for Mrs X’s father-in-law’s care. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X for the delays and apply a credit to the final balance of £500 as a gesture of goodwill to reflect the distress, inconvenience and frustration caused.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council left her without a Direct Payment or a support package for a long period of time. We have found fault with the Council who have agreed to remedy Miss X’s injustice.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. The Council is not at fault for the way it handled her application.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s poor communication in relation to her adult son Mr Y’s care charges. The Council was at fault for not following up the failure to return the financial assessment and for poor communication when Mrs X raised concerns about the care charges. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr Y, pay him £250 and offer a repayment plan. It also agreed to remind its social care and finance teams, in writing, of the importance of good communication.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to consider disability related expenditures when carrying out a financial assessment for her son and delayed completing the assessment. We are discontinuing our investigation into Mrs X complaint as we cannot say that Ms X is a suitable representative.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a Council’s handling of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. This is because there is no evidence of significant injustice to Miss X or her late mother to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about abuse and neglect of a vulnerable adult, and poor care given by an adult social care provider. This is because the adult has died and so we can achieve no worthwhile outcome for them. The injustice to the complainant would not justify our involvement. Allegations of abuse and neglect are for the local authority safeguarding team to consider.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s management of Mr X’s care and support needs. This is because the there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care charges. This is because it is a late complaint. But even if it were not late, it is unlikely we would find fault. The Council followed the correct process to assess a contribution toward care, so can ask for payment. The person receiving the care was aware they needed to pay and received the service.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s son’s care and support, and of the Council making safeguarding enquiries for his son. This is because it is out of jurisdiction as the Council is not responsible for the matters complained about.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to not disregard a property he co-owned with his late mother Mrs Y when determining her care fee contributions, or other related complaints. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant an investigation. There is insufficient evidence of other matters complained of causing a significant personal injustice to justify us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with concerns raised about his neighbours. This is because the complainant does not have consent to complaint on behalf of his neighbour and because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled concerns it received relating to Mrs X’s caring role. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions, or injustice caused by events, to warrant investigation.

Summary: Ms X complained about the way the care provider dealt with her mother’s care home fees which she said caused financial uncertainty. We have found no fault causing injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his mother’s telephone line being cut off after he raised a safeguarding concern to the Council. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging Mrs X’s friend for the care and support services she received. She says the Council did not provide clear information that the services were chargeable. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome as the Council has offered a suitable remedy to recognise the injustice caused by the faults accepted.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a wet room installed in 2016. The matter is best dealt with through the court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his late grandfather Mr Y’s residential care provision in 2021. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now. There is also no worthwhile outcome achievable from us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms D’s complaint about the standard of her late mother’s, Mrs E’s, end-of-life care. This is because we could not provide Mrs E with a remedy even if we uncovered evidence of fault because she is deceased. Further investigation is not warranted by the Ombudsman.

Summary: There was fault by the Council in complaint handling which caused avoidable time and trouble. The Council also delayed carrying out Ms X’s social care assessment and delayed responding to her request for extra care and support. The Council will apologise, make payments to reflect the avoidable distress, time and trouble and loss of care. It will also instruct social care staff to offer agency care when a customer’s care arrangement breaks down and to keep copies of draft assessments and care and support plans.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the quality of care provided by the Council commissioned care provider Routes Healthcare DCA. Mrs X received care in line with her care package. However, the care provider’s lack of records leaves Mrs X with a sense of frustration and uncertainty over whether her complaints were fully responded to. The Council has agreed to apologise for this. It has already taken action to prevent recurrence of the fault.

Summary: Suffolk County Council and Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust did not appropriately assess Miss X’s Section 117 aftercare needs in June 2022. The Council then delayed assessing her aftercare needs for 12 months. Miss X suffered distress and the fault impacted her mental wellbeing. I have recommended the Council and Trust take action to remedy the injustice to Miss X and others.

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

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a Council officer following her daughter. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and I see no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about documented information Mrs C says is false and recorded in her late mother’s, Mrs D’s care records. This is because we could not make a different finding to that already provided by Mrs D’s Care Provider or provide Mrs C with the outcome she wants.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms B’s complaint about her landlords failure to make suitable arrangements for accommodation when the lift in her property broke down. This is because we cannot consider complaints about a landlord.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to provide her with information to enable her to repay direct payments. She also complained that it delayed in providing an advocate for her adult son and in completing a Care Act assessment for him resulting in his care and support needs being unmet. She also said there were several changes in social worker causing the family distress. We found the Council delayed in providing Mrs X with a new invoice so she could make the repayment and failed to keep the family informed about changes in social workers. The Council has apologised and agreed to make a payment in recognition of the injustice caused.

Summary: The care provider acknowledges it did not always provide a good standard of care for Mr X. The care provider also invoiced the family for 1:1 nighttime care which was not always provided in the way the family understood. The care provider should now offer a sum in recognition that the care was not always appropriate or agreed.

Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her mother, Mrs Y, that the Council went back on an agreement to pay for her live-in care which the family funded while it made decisions about her permanent care and support package. She also says it acted unreasonably by using a care home nearly 50 miles from Mrs Y’s home when completing a cost comparison to calculate how much it was willing to pay for her care. We found there were errors in the calculation of Mrs Y’s direct payment and failures in communication causing confusion. The Council also raised Mrs X’s expectations by agreeing to refund the cost of live-in care but then failed to do so. It has offered a satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to take adequate action to address her care and support needs. She says the Council delayed providing care and support, it failed to complete and record assessments and it failed to ensure she has adaptations to her house so she can live independently. We find the Council was at fault for how it handled Mrs B’s care and support needs. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: The Council was at fault for significant delays to its assessments of Mrs B’s needs and finances after she moved into a care home. It has already partly remedied any injustice to Mrs B and her son arising from the delays. It has now agreed to make a further remedy payment to recognise that, shortly after Mrs B moved into the care home, it told her son that it would pay her fees until it had completed her needs assessment. It will also take steps to improve its service.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council sharing information with a third party, and about defamation of character and loss of employment. There are other bodies better placed to consider these issues, and no worthwhile outcome achievable by the Ombudsman.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s actions when her child, D, who is disabled, moved from children’s to adult social care services. The Council gave Mrs X wrong information about direct payments, failed to keep her updated, and delayed its transition assessment for D which caused a gap in care and support. The Council agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy to the family, and cover the cost of any financial loss caused to Mrs X by the wrong information it provided. It will also review relevant policies and procedures, and issue guidance to its staff.

Summary: The Council was at fault for the way it refused to consider Mr B’s complaints. The reason it gave – that the complaints were about issues which were more than 12 months old – did not apply to all the complaints. The Council has agreed to look at them again.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider losing Mr Y’s false teeth. The courts are best placed to deal with claims for costs of replacing lost or damaged possessions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Adult Social Care. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care charges, because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and it is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s actions when her child, D, who is disabled, moved from children’s to adult social care services. The Council gave Mrs X wrong information about direct payments, failed to keep her updated, and delayed its transition assessment for D which caused a gap in care and support. The Council agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy to the family, and cover the cost of any financial loss caused to Mrs X by the wrong information it provided. It will also review relevant policies and procedures, and issue guidance to its staff.

Summary: There is fault in the Council’s decision not to cover the full cost of Mrs B’s respite care. There is also fault in how the Council communicated with Mr B regarding this, and how it responded to his complaint. The Council’s shortcomings caused Mr B frustration and put him to time and trouble trying to resolve the issues. The Council has agreed to my recommended remedy.

Summary: Ms X on behalf of Ms Y, complained the Council failed to properly complete financial assessments when charging for day centre services and failed explain why charges stayed the same even when the service reduced during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ms X says this caused distress and affected Ms Y’s wellbeing. There was fault in two financial assessments as well as fault in failing to respond to queries and letters. A suitable remedy is agreed.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms B’s Care Provider. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr C to ask other bodies to consider his concerns. There is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to disregard Mr B’s property from his financial assessment. This is because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council charging her mother for her care and support. She says the Council told them the placement would be free. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: There was fault the Council did not ensure Mr X had care provision after his care provider stopped providing support at short notice. This was despite its best efforts to locate another care provider. This gap in care support however, caused Mr X and his mother, Mrs B, an injustice, and the Council have agreed to make a payment to them to fully recognise their injustice.

Summary: The care provider did not properly assess the late Mr X’s mental capacity or process the application for a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation correctly. The care provider continued to take overly restrictive measures to deprive Mr X of his liberty after less restrictive options were suggested. As a result Mr X and his family suffered considerable personal distress and additional costs.

Summary: There was no fault in the way a council responded to safeguarding concerns Mrs X raised about her mother Mrs Y’s care in a care home.