Summary: Ms B complained that the Council was seeking to recover contributions towards the cost of her late mother’s (Mrs C’s) care costs, which Ms B believes she does not owe. She also complained the Council had failed to explain why the balance is outstanding and why it had discounted evidence provided by Ms B. We found fault with the actions of the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms B, confirm the money is not owed, pay her £250 and improve its complaint-handling procedures.

Summary: There was fault by the Council as it delayed considering a complaint through its complaints process. An apology and payment remedies the injustice, as the substantive issue of the complaint has now been resolved.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about poor workmanship in relation to disabled adaptations. This is because the complaint is late. There is no evidence Mrs X could not have complained sooner and no good reason for us to investigate now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. This is because a court order covers some of the issues, so we have no power to investigate them. There is not enough evidence of fault in the issues we could investigate to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue a blue badge. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to his request for care and support. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions and further investigation would not lead to different outcome.

Summary: Mr D complained about the care and support provided to his late mother, Mrs G, when she was discharged from hospital to a care home. We did not find fault by the Trust or the Council. There was fault in the way the Home recorded Mrs G’s weight and it failed to refer her for a continence assessment. The Home agreed to our recommendations to apologise to Mr D and Mr G and make symbolic payments.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to charge for her late husband’s (Mr X) residential care fees for a period when she was unaware of his liability for charges. She is also unhappy the Council refused to disregard certain items as disability related expenditure (DRE). The Council has already accepted it was at fault and sought to remedy the distress caused by its delay in completing and sharing the financial assessment and invoice with Mrs X. It has now agreed to apologise and provide an improved remedy to Mrs X. There appears no fault in how the Council considered the items Mrs X requested as DRE.

Summary: Mrs D complained the Council failed to complete her father’s Continuing Health Care checklist correctly and it was not truthful about its actions. She also says the Council delayed providing urgent care to her father. We find the Council was at fault for failing to complete the checklist correctly and for failing to be truthful about its actions. It was also at fault for its delay in finding a nursing home placement for Mrs D’s father. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: We upheld some of Mr X’s complaints about his relative Mr Y’s care. Communication with Mr X was poor, particularly around ending the contract. And Mr Y did not receive healthy snacks in line with his nutritional needs. The Care Provider has already taken appropriate action by apologising and offering a payment.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care charges. That is because it is a late complaint.

Summary: There is evidence to show the Care Provider failed to provide adequately trained live-in carers for Mr Y.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of his relative, Mr Y’s, adult social care charges. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to provide Mrs X with direct payments or to initiate safeguarding in relation to her relative Mr Y. This is because the events complained about took place more than 12 months ago and it would have been reasonable for her to bring this complaint to us at the time.

Summary: Ms X complained about how the care provider has treated her. She said the care provider refused to allow her access to her father’s information and refused to allow her to see him. We find the care provider was at fault for refusing to allow Ms X to see her father. This caused her significant distress. To address this injustice caused by fault we recommend the care provider apologise and make a symbolic payment.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Care Provider, Greensleeves Homes Trust and its care Home, The Orchards. Mrs X complains about the decision to end Mr Z’s care and how notice to end the care was given by the Care Provider. She says it based the decision on false information and caused Mr Z distress. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Care Provider for its complaint handling and management of communication with Mr Z’s family. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Care Provider for its decision to end Mr Z’s care or how it gave notice. The Care Provider has agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy and carry out service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council handled the payment of her mother’s care home fees. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a blue badge application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. The Council has followed the correct process to decide the application, including assessment by an expert assessor. So the Ombudsman cannot question or criticise the outcome, even though the complainant disagrees with it.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council refusing to pay for invoices for physiotherapy services he provided to an individual. This is because it is reasonable to expect him to take the matter to court.

Summary: Mr X complains that Collingswood Care provided inadequate care to Mr Y. The Care Provider is at fault as it did not properly record the administration of medicines to Mr Y which resulted in him not being given medication on one occasion. Collingswood Care’s handling of Mr X’s complaint was poor which caused frustration to him. Collingswood Care should remedy the injustice to Mr X by sending an apology to him. It should also carry out the recommended service improvements.

Summary: There is no evidence that Mr X’s placements were affected by an ordinary residence dispute, or that the Council delayed in sourcing a placement for him.

Summary: There was no fault in how the Council responded to a concern for the welfare of Mr Y. The evidence shows it took account of the available information it had, responded to the concern raised, and spoke to Mr Y to seek his views and preferences before deciding no further action was required.

Summary: The Council failed to act accordingly on some occasions when concerns were raised about Mr Y’s welfare, it failed to follow-up agreed actions and failed to provide Mr Y’s representative with timely information. It then delayed responding to his complaint

Summary: Mrs F complained about the Council’s decisions to put her on a managed direct payment in early 2023 and to suspend her direct payment from June 2023. She said this caused her distress, financial loss, and impacted her physical and mental health. We found no fault in the process the Council followed to audit Mrs F’s direct payment account, nor its process to suspend her payment due to her studying abroad. This was in line with its Direct Payment Policy. It was therefore entitled to reach its views.

Summary: We do not uphold Ms X’s complaints about care to her late mother in a care home. Care was in line with Ms Y’s preferences and the home liaised with the GP to ensure Ms Y received healthcare.

Summary: The Council was not at fault in the way it reached a decision not to carry out a retrospective funding assessment for aftercare funding for the late Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about administration charges for adult social care. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault; the Council’s records show the charges were discussed and agreed.

Summary: Ms X complained about the standard of care given by the Care Provider, to her mother, Mrs Y, who entered one of its care homes as a temporary resident in June 2022. We upheld the complaint finding a series of failings by the Care Provider. These included a failure to provide safe care to Mrs Y, to meet her hydration needs and keep satisfactory records. These failings caused Mrs Y avoidable distress. They also caused uncertainty to Ms X in not knowing if better care could have prevented Mrs Y’s subsequent admission to hospital where she later died. The Care Provider has agreed a series of recommendations for actions it will take to remedy this injustice and improve its service, set out at the end of this statement.

Summary: There was some poor recording and communication by the care provider, for which it has apologised. However, there is insufficient evidence to say the care provider was at fault in being unable to readmit the late Mr X to the hospice on 8 April.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s decision not to fund residential care placements for her parents, Mr and Mrs Y. We did not find fault in the Council’s assessments of Mr and Mrs Y’s care and support needs.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council has failed to deal properly with her daughter’s care needs for many years and has failed to respect her powers of attorney for health and welfare and property and affairs. The Council accepts it failed to respect the fact that Ms X can manage her daughter’s finances regardless of whether her daughter lacks the capacity to do so herself. The Council was also at fault over its handling of two mental capacity assessments, as they did not comply with its own statement on how it should approach such assessments. There was also a long delay in making a decision in the daughter’s best interests. This caused avoidable distress which requires an apology and a symbolic payment.

Summary: We found fault with Ridge House Residential Home Limited (the Care Provider) for the way it ended its residential care contract with Mr X. The Care Provider’s failure to provide information about the possibility and procedure for ending the contract due to the change of residents’ needs caused injustice to Mr X and his daughters. The Care Provider agreed to apologise to Mr X and his daughters, make a symbolic payment for Mr X’s daughters to recognise their distress and amend its residential care contracts.

Summary: Mrs B says the Council wrongly treated her as depriving herself of capital. The Council failed to follow the guidance when reaching its decision on deprivation and put forward various reasons for reaching its decision which failed to address the facts of the case. An apology, agreement to consider the case again and training for officers is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about care charges the Council delayed notifying Mrs Y’s family about, as there is not a good reason for the delay in bringing the matter to the Ombudsman. However, if we investigated it is likely we would decide the Council’s offer of a financial remedy is in line with our guidance.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a data breach by the Council. This is because complaints about data matters such as this are best considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care in a residential care home. It is unlikely we would add to previous investigations or reach a different outcome. It is for police to investigate whether a missing item was stolen.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about safeguarding issues raised from 2019 - 2022. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: Miss C complained the Council failed to complete an acceptable care assessment within a reasonable time frame, delayed in responding to her correspondence, did not adequately correct faults found in its complaint responses and failed to provide care following a further assessment. We have found fault with the Council’s actions which caused injustice to Miss C. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Mr X complained Pro Target Care Ltd failed to return the correct sum due in respect of care charges his mother had paid in advance for the period 21 November to 6 December 2022, which were subsequently funded by Continuing Healthcare. We uphold Mr X’s complaint. The Care Provider’s failure to provide clear information about Mrs Y’s care fees and the errors in calculating the amount to be refunded have caused Mr X and Mrs Y’s estate an injustice.