Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a Deprivation of Liberty referral. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by further investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr W’s complaint about actions and inactions by the Council in respect of a care home loan given to his late mother in 2007. This is because we have no jurisdiction to investigate a late complaint where there are no good reasons to exercise discretion. We also cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed completing a financial assessment for her father and delayed issuing an invoice for his care. The Council was at fault. This caused Ms X undue distress. The Council should pay Ms X £300 in recognition of that distress, issue staff reminders and amend the information about paying for care in its leaflet on adult social care.

Summary: Mr X complained, on behalf of his mother, Mrs Y, about how the Council communicated changes to how her care would be funded. There was fault in how the Council failed to properly tell Mr X about changes to the funding arrangements for Mrs Y’s care. This resulted in Mrs Y paying more for care than she would have done. The Council agreed to apologise and pay for some of Mrs Y’s outstanding care charges. It also agreed to remind its staff about the importance of good communication and case recording.

Summary: Ms B complained about decisions relating to her mother’s move to residential care in late 2020/early 2021. The complaint was made late and the investigation is discontinued.

Summary: The Council has decided not to recover the debt owed by Ms A. The Ombudsman will not pursue the complaint further.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the care provided to her late father, Mr C. This is because we could not add to previous investigations or make a different finding. We cannot remedy the injustice caused to Mr C from the care provider’s actions because he is now deceased.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council not sending regular bills for her son’s adult social care package. This is because the accepted fault has not caused any significant injustice. In addition, an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about incorrect care home charges by the Council. She says the charges relate to time when her late husband was in hospital and not using his room at the care home. We are unlikely to find fault by the Council for the invoice charges.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to consider her complaint about her neighbour’s social worker. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to complete a financial assessment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: Ms X complains the Care Provider has not provided safe social care for her mother, Mrs Y. The Care Provider is at fault because care records were not fully kept. The Care Provider has already provided an appropriate remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms Y’s placement in a nursing home. The matters have been raised as part of court proceedings, so we are prevented in law from investigating.

Summary: Mr X says the Council have failed to increase his budget for care meaning that he is having to cover additional costs for his carers. Mr X also says the Council has removed his nighttime care award and not explained why. Mr X says this has affected him financially. We find fault with the Council for the confusing correspondence sent to Mr X and the delay in completing the 2022 review. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy for the distress caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care provided to Mr X when he was resident in a care home that acting on behalf of the Council. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to achieve anything further to what has been achieved through the local resolution process.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delays in the Council providing information he requested about a friend’s care. He also complains about the Council’s decision not to uphold his complaint. This is because an investigation would not lead to different findings or outcomes. In addition, the accepted fault has not caused Mr X significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about care fees for Mrs X’s deceased mother, Mrs Y. The law says complaints should be made to us within 12 months. In any event, the substantive part of the complaint has been resolved and it is not proportionate for us to investigate complaints processes alone.

Summary: There was fault by the Council. It cannot show that it properly considered its decision to alter Mrs B’s home care package. It did not act in good time on Mr B’s concerns around confidentiality and its complaints procedure was confusing. The Council’s shortcomings have caused Mr B distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the recommendation to detain her under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act. She has appealed that decision to the First Tier Tribunal (Mental Health), which was the most appropriate way to challenge the detention.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult care services because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and any injustice caused is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. This is because it is unlikely we would add to the Council’s investigation. The Council has accepted fault, apologised, and explained how it will improve future service. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further.

Summary: Ms Y complains Emerson Grange Care Home failed to safeguard her mother, Mrs X, and failed to provide the care she needed. Ms Y says this resulted in Mrs X being admitted to hospital. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Care Provider for failing to provide care to Mrs X and failing to safeguard her from harm. The Care Provider has already provided a partial refund of fees, however the Care Provider has agreed to make a further distress payment and carry out service improvements for its complaints handling.

Summary: There was fault in how the Council considered Mr X’s mother’s capacity to manage her financial and property affairs, after it had concerns. That fault caused Mr X and his mother an injustice and the Council have agreed to my recommendations to remedy this injustice. There was also a delayed response to an allegation of physical abuse, which was also fault, however the Council had already remedied any injustice here prior to our involvement.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to address her non-payment of home care charges at an earlier stage. As a result, a large debt accrued. We have found fault with the Council’s actions because the case was allowed to drift for two years. To remedy the distress caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X, reduce the amount she owes by £500 and review its debt management procedures.

Summary: Mr X complained about his care charges and the support provided to him by a support worker regarding a rent increase and care workers who he said failed to support him in line with the support plan. There was no fault in the way Mr X was supported by the support worker or care workers. The Council was at fault for charging Mr X for double handed care without explaining why this was necessary or the impact of this on his care charges and for failing to properly consider Mr X’s disability related expenditure. This caused Mr X uncertainty and frustration. The Council has agreed to review Mr X’s care charges and disability related expenditure.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council misleading Mr X about the cost of his father’s care home placement. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: The Ombudsmen will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how he was detained under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983. We are unlikely to find fault in the way Mr X was assessed before being detained. Also, there is insufficient injustice to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. The Council had a duty to investigate concerns it received and keep the vulnerable adult safe. That had an impact on the complainant but was not because of Council fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her blue badge application, and its decision remaining the same after she provided more evidence with her appeal. 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 adult social care in a residential care home. We are satisfied with the Care Provider’s actions to investigate and apologise. It is unlikely we could add to its investigation or achieve anything further.

Summary: The care provider failed to notify Mr X promptly of the fees payable for Mrs A’s care once she became self-funding. Mr X paid the outstanding fees but moved Mrs A to another, less expensive, home as soon as he could. The care provider should reimburse the difference between the fees for the appropriate period until Mrs A moved.

Summary: The Council’s social care and finance teams did not communicate properly after Ms X’s father’s death and that caused distress and anxiety among her family which the Council will recognise with a payment. However, it was not the fault of the Council that Mr X did not take account of the information given to him about becoming an appointee for his sister’s benefits. The Council is now taking appropriate action to resolve the matter of Ms X’s finances.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council’s failures to provide a proper care needs assessments for her mother, Mrs C, a Continuing Health Care (CHC) funding checklist in 2022 or its failure to communicate effectively and in a timely way with her. This is because we could not add to the Council’s investigation or response even if we investigated. We could not achieve the outcome Ms B wants.

Summary: The Council acknowledged an administrative error in the consideration of Ms X’s blue badge renewal application and provided her with a blue badge during our investigation. However, it failed to remedy the injustice caused as a result of its error.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about an incident that happened in November 2021 which led to her father falling and suffering a serious injury. She says the carer failed to move her father appropriately. This is because her complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council withdrawing payments that covered her son’s carer’s expenses. She also complains about the Council’s decision to charge her son a contribution towards the cost of his care and support. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: Mr B asked Croydon Council to carry out an assessment of his mother’s needs in April 2023 and the assessment has still not been carried out. Mr B’s mother resides in a care home in Somerset and both Croydon and Somerset Council said it was the other council’s duty to assess Mr B’s mother. We have found fault in the delay and the failure of the councils to respond. The councils have agreed to apologise, pay a symbolic sum and Somerset Council will carry out the assessments.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to end her care package. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the uncertainty caused.