Summary: The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman investigated a complaint about the care provided to a resident (Mr Y). Lyme Regis Nursing Home operated by Farrington Care Homes Limited did not: provide adequate personal care to Mr Y; care and manage Mr Y’s wounds and prevent pressure sores; manage Mr Y’s diabetes; keep adequate records. The council’s safeguarding investigation said there were evidential acts of neglect and omissions in Mr Y’s care. This caused Mr Y unnecessary pain and suffering, and his family significant distress.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the actions of the Care Provider, Leaf Care Services Ltd and its Care Home, Ixworth Dementia Village and the care and support it provided to her late father, Mr Y. The Care Provider was at fault because it increased Mr Y’s care and support hours without supporting evidence. Its decision to terminate Mr Y’s contract was flawed. It provided care and support to Mr Y which was not safe and attempted to pursue action against Mrs X as she did not agree to changing her father’s care and support. The faults caused Mrs X distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Care Provider has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and provide her with a symbolic payment of £500.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the care provided to her mother. We could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council placed her mother in a care home rather than providing care at home. Mrs X also complained about the Council’s decision to decline both a mandatory and discretionary disregard to the family home. Mrs X also complained the Council failed to complete a Continuing Health Care assessment of her mother. We did not find fault with the Council placing Mrs X’s mother in a care home. We also did not find fault with the Council’s decisions to decline a mandatory or discretionary disregard for the family home. We did find fault with the Council failing to get an independent valuation of Mrs X’s mother’s share in the property and for delays in completion of the Continuing Health Care assessment. The Council agreed to complete an independent valuation of Mrs X’s mother’s share in the property and reconsiders its financial assessment in light of this. The Council also agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pays her £250 for the distress and uncertainty its delay caused her.

Summary: Mrs Z is a solicitor acting as a court appointed professional deputy on behalf of Mr X. Mrs Z complained the Council has refused to include Mrs Z’s professional deputy costs as a disability disregard in his financial assessment. We found fault with the Council’s flawed reasoning in not including Mr X’s deputy fees as a personal expense in the financial assessment. The Council agreed to review and reconsider its decision. The Council also agreed to review all other cases in the last 12 months including a similar situation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with safeguarding concerns. There is insufficient evidence of fault and any injustice is not because of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care provided to Ms X’s late son. This is because a safeguarding investigation has not finished, and we would not be able to achieve anything.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to source a personal assistant for her son, Mr Z, and miscalculated his financial contributions towards his support. We could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation or achieve a different outcome. The Council was at fault when it wrongly told Mr Z it would waive some of his financial contributions. However, Mr Z has been assessed as able to afford his contributions and so any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council did not assess her daughter Ms Y’s care charge properly. We have not found fault in the Council’s decision making. However, there were significant delays by the Council in advising Mrs X and responding to her complaints. The Council has agreed our remedy.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council reduced her adult daughter, Ms Y’s, personal budget and removed funding for specific activities. She also complained it did not have a process in place to manage the annual uplift in the care provider’s fees. The Council was not at fault for reducing Ms Y’s budget. It was at fault because there was delay in producing the support plan which caused Mrs X frustration and distress. It has agreed to apologise for this. There is no evidence of fault in the way it manages the annual increase in the hourly rate of care providers.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to grant a blue badge. 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 handling of Mr X’s request to renew his Blue Badge. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We uphold Mr X’s complaint about the way his grandmother’s discharge was handled. We have found the Council failed to properly consider the option of Mrs Y returning home with 24-hour care in place. As a result, Mrs Y and Mr X were caused unnecessary frustration, uncertainty and distress. The Council will apologise, reviews its processes and pay a total of £500.

Summary: Miss F complains on behalf of her mother, Mrs B, about the domiciliary care provided by COOCI Associates. There is no evidence that the care provider’s actions have caused injustice to Mrs B.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the standard of care and support Ms B received from her previous care provider. This is because we could not add to the Council’s response or make a different finding. We are satisfied Ms B is now receiving appropriate care and support so there is no ongoing injustice warranting an ombudsman investigation.

Summary: Mr X complains the council delayed a re-assessment of his mother’s care needs and failed to update him and respond to his queries appropriately. We found there was delay in acting and that the Council’s communication could have been improved, causing Mr X frustration. We recommended the Council provided a written apology and sent a written explanation of its decision on Mr X’s request for additional care for his mother.

Summary: Mrs X complained that her mother, Mrs Y, was served with an eviction notice as retaliation for complaints made by the family about the standard of care, saying this caused distress to all involved. There is no evidence to show that Care UK raised issues with the family about the impact they were having on staff, made efforts to resolve this or considered the impact an eviction would have on Mrs Y which is fault. A suitable remedy is agreed.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how a section 135 warrant was used to gain entry to a property. It is unlikely we would find fault by the Council or the NHS Trust. They have also already addressed specific issues about access arrangements and we are unlikely to achieve more by investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about lost items in a residential care home, because it is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome. There is not enough evidence to support the Care Provider’s actions caused the claimed loss. There is also another body better placed to consider the matter, as insurers or a court can assess liability and loss.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation, and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s provision of adult social care services because the complaint is late.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council calculated the late Mrs B’s finances when charging for her care home fees. This is because the Council’s actions have not caused Mrs B’s estate a significant enough injustice to warrant an ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Adult Care Services because we are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council delaying in delivering his replacement height-adjustable armchair, and not providing support to his wife and family prior to her having an operation. The Council’s fault regarding the delivery of the chair caused insufficient personal injustice to warrant us investigating. The support complaint is premature for us to investigate until the Council has responded to it.

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