Summary: There was fault as the Council provided confusing information to Mrs B about the direct payment and delayed paying the direct payments. There was also fault in the Council’s communication about the need for adaptations and its failure to properly assess whether adaptations or equipment to Mr C’s room were necessary to meet his needs. The Council has agreed to apologise, to pay a financial remedy and to offer an assessment.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about an Approved Mental Health Professional (for London Borough of Tower Hamlets) and two Section 12 doctors (for East London NHS Foundation Trust and NHS North East London Integrated Care Board respectively). We are unlikely to find fault with their recommendation to detain Miss X under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. The Care Provider has accepted some fault, apologised, offered £1000 off the bill, and taken action to improve service. I am satisfied with the Care Provider’s actions in response to the complaint. It is unlikely the Ombudsman could add to the Care Provider’s investigation or that an Ombudsman investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils poor communication with Mrs A’s about her late father’s, Mr C’s, care. This is because we could not add to the Council’s response or make a different finding even if we investigated. We are satisfied with the actions taken by the Council.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council’s assessments of Mr Y’s care and support needs were not person centred enough and have not taken account of his views or wishes. Mrs X also complained about a lack of support and guidance from the Council in managing Mr Y’s dysregulation and challenging behaviour. There was no fault in the way the Council assessed Mr Y’s needs. There was fault when the Council failed to update Mr Y’s assessment with details about his challenging behaviours. The Council apologised and updated Mr Y’s assessment. This remedies the injustice.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed in providing the support it had assessed her husband as needing, causing harm to their children and putting avoidable pressure on her. The Council failed to meet Mr X’s needs. It needs to apologise, pay financial redress and take action to improve its services.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to issue a blue badge. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care because it is unlikely we will add to the Care Provider’s investigation or reach a different outcome. There is a differing version of events and the person affected has died, so we cannot clarify matters or achieve any remedy for them.

Summary: Ms X complains about the care that a care home provided before it gave her mother Mrs X notice. We found fault by the care provider, and it has agreed our recommended remedy.

Summary: The Council was at fault for not considering whether to provide an interpreter to Mrs B after it became aware that her English may not have been good enough to participate fully in her disabled parking badge assessment. It has agreed to arrange a new assessment.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed carrying out a review of her mother Mrs Y’s care needs and failed to investigate safeguarding concerns raised about a relative’s behaviour towards Mrs Y. The Council was at fault for the delay in carrying out the needs assessment and review and for failing to act in response to the safeguarding concerns raised. It has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and Mrs Y and makes payments to acknowledge the distress and frustration caused to them both and for the missed support for Mrs Y. It has also agreed to remind relevant officers to respond appropriately to safeguarding concerns and to keep suitable records of their decision making.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not agree to her disabled facilities grant (DFG) request. She applied for a dropped kerb and to create a hardstanding at the front of her property. Miss X said this meant she could not leave her property and has lost independence. The Council was not at fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council incorrectly contacted the complainant about their mother’s death. The Council has apologised and made service improvements. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the actions of the care home where her mother was a resident in late June 2023. This is because at the time of the events complained about the NHS was responsible for Mrs Y’s placement and so there is no sign of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care arrangements. This is because we cannot consider matters that have been to court. Ms B wants to live with her parents, but a court has decided where she should live. The Ombudsman cannot overturn the court’s decision so cannot achieve the outcome Ms B wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a blue badge parking permit. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant an investigation.

Summary: The Council was at fault. It took 10 months to reassess and revise Mrs X’s care and support plan. It failed to provide her with a managed direct payment account and did not fully address her complaint. The Council will apologise, provide advice and make her payments set out in this statement.

Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council handled her partner’s (Mr Y’s) care and support needs assessment. We have discontinued our investigation as the Council has agreed to Ms X’s requests. Our further involvement would be unlikely to achieve a different outcome.

Summary: There is no evidence the care provider was at fault in the way it decided to manage Mrs A’s risk of falls although there were several conflicting factors to be weighed up. Continued investigation would not achieve any more for Mrs A.

Summary: There is no evidence of fault or injustice in the fees charged by the care home. The care home charged the fee it said it would by letter, which did not include Funded Nursing Care contributions.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of and refusal decision on her application for a blue badge. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council tenders for Mental Health Services in its area. This is because it is unlikely we would find evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way Mrs X and her mother, Mrs E were treated by the Council commissioned residential care provider. This is because further investigation by us could not add to the care provider’s response or make a different finding of the kind Mrs X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failings in a residential substance misuse centre because we could not add to the provider’s response on behalf of the Council, the remedy it has offered is suitable to the injustice Mr B claims, and CQC is better placed to consider wider performance issues through its inspection programme.