Summary: The Council has provided evidence that the delay in finding a suitable alternative placement for Mrs X after there was a serious safeguarding concern and the care provider said it could not meet her needs was not entirely in its control. It will however offer Mr X and Mrs X’s daughter a sum in acknowledgment of the distress they witnessed as a result of poor care. The Council could have then arranged a suitable placement for Mrs X within her personal budget but Mr X was unwilling to choose another home.

Summary: Ms B complained in her own right and on behalf of her late mother, Mrs C. She complained about the Council’s actions when her mother moved to a care home. She said the Council delayed in carrying out an assessment of her needs. That meant her mother did not receive the care she needed. She said the lack of appropriate care had a significant impact on her mother’s quality of life. It was also distressing for her and the rest of the family. She considered the Council did not respond appropriately to her complaints which added to her distress. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Ms B. The Council will apologise, make a payment and review its services.

Summary: Mrs X complains HC-One’s Priorslee House failed to provide her late father with the right support after he had a fall in February 2023, resulting in him sustaining an injury, spending time in hospital and moving to a nursing home, which otherwise could have been avoided. HC-One has made some changes following Mr Y’s fall and has apologised for any distress caused to him and his family. There is no need to ask HC-One to do more than it has already done.

Summary: Mr X complains Chandler Court failed to meet his mother’s needs properly after she had a stroke on 6 May 2023, resulting in her being left for six hours before calling an ambulance. Care UK accepts Chandler Court should have checked Mrs Y earlier in the day for signs of a stroke. It says it has taken action to ensure this does not happen again. Care UK needs to confirm the action it has taken. It also needs to make a symbolic payment to Mrs Y.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care in a nursing home. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants; a payment for loss of earnings. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would lead to a different outcome than the Council has already provided.

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. In addition, the Council provided a satisfactory response regarding a complaint about an offensive comment.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s care and support needs. He says the Council failed to complete a proper assessment for him as the Council ignored his need for ongoing rehabilitation and physiotherapy. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, there is another body better placed to consider the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about criminal and negligent acts by the Council and its approach to safeguarding. This is because we are not the appropriate body to consider matters relating to criminal acts or acts of negligence. Further, part of the complaint is late and we are unlikely to find fault in relation to safeguarding.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about poor care records, missing items, breach of care standards and lack of inventory dating back to 2017. This is because we could achieve nothing more than Ms B has been advised by the Care Provider even if we investigated.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed carrying out a financial assessment for his mother Mrs Y’s contribution to her care costs and then wrongly decided his mother has deprived herself of assets to avoid care costs. There was no fault in the way the Council decided Mrs Y had deprived herself of assets. Through its complaints investigation the Council identified faults with its initial decision making regarding deprivation, delay in the financial assessment process and in information provided to the family. It offered to apologise and pay Mr X £250 which was appropriate. It also agreed to take action to prevent recurrence of the faults.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about @.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the support Mr B received when he moved from one area to another. This is because further investigation by us could not add to the Council’s response or make a different finding.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s management of Mr X’s application for a disabled facilities grant. This is because most of the events complained about took place more than 12 months ago and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to refer them to us sooner. In addition, investigating the parts of the complaint that are within our jurisdiction would be unlikely to result in finding fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council arranged and completed a mental capacity assessment. The Council has upheld the complaint, apologised, and made service improvements. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care provided at home. This is because it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s investigation or achieve anything further. The Council has accepted fault, apologised, and acted to improve future service. We are satisfied with the Council’s actions in response to the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about her mother’s care provider. She says it provided an inadequate service to her mother. This is because an investigation would not lead to different findings or outcomes.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a care provider administering antipsychotic medication to Ms Y in a residential home. The medication was prescribed by a GP, and we could not say any fault by the care provider caused the injustice Mr X claims.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s blue badge application process. This is because Miss B has not been caused a significant personal injustice by the Council’s actions.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s decision to charge her for care and support, and for backdating the charges, despite earlier telling her she would not have to pay. We found the Council at fault for delays in the re-assessment process, for failing to properly explain its decision, and for failing to acknowledge Miss X’s evidence and vulnerability.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council’s appointed contractor took too long to complete Disabled Facilities Grant works in her bathroom and the work was of a poor standard. We found fault because of the delay in completing the necessary adaptations to the bathroom. The Council has agreed to re-state its previous payment offer to Mrs X and assess any outstanding installation issues with Mrs X before agreeing how they should be fixed.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not offer him any form of adult social care support, despite a referral from his GP. We have not found fault in the Council’s actions. The Council has made multiple offers to carry out an assessment for Mr X to understand any need he may have. Mr X has declined to be assessed.

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mr C’s complaint about how the Council has charged him for his late father’s care. The Council has now offered to waive the outstanding charges and has also offered Mr C a symbolic remedy for any injustice he has been caused. This means there is nothing we could add by investigating the complaint further.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about backdated care charges for residential care. This is because the Council has properly conducted a financial assessment to determine care charges. We consider there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to involve Mr X in decision relating to his uncle’s care and support. He also complains about the Council’s management of his uncle’s finances. This is because the alleged faults have not caused any significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a safeguarding investigation the Council carried out in 2020. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider this very late complaint now. Also, we cannot consider a claim of negligence as that is a legal matter for the courts to consider and decide.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about discrepancies in the care home’s responses regarding how her mother-in-law fell. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s communication when adult social care charges changed. The Council has apologised for the upset caused by not communicating with relevant representatives and is considering how to change process to ensure it communicates correctly in future. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken; it is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to recommend the installation of a stairlift in Mr X’s home. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council allowing Mr X’s family member to make false allegations about him. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a private company. This is because the Council is not responsible for the actions complained about.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council recovering care fees. This is because we cannot investigate where the complainant has sought a remedy in court.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to ensure domiciliary care was in place to help his wife while he was in hospital having surgery. The Council was at fault for the delay in call and complaint handling and arranging support for Mr X’s wife. This caused avoidable distress to Mr X and his wife at an already stressful time. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to Mr X and his wife for this injustice. The Council will also review and revise its published policy for handling Adult Social Care complaints.

Summary: Miss B complains that her late mother’s care home has refused to refund overpaid care fees to her estate. We found fault by the Care Provider in its communication which caused injustice. The Care Provider has agreed to remedy this.

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mr C’s complaint about how the Council charged his father for care. The Council has now offered to waive the outstanding charges and has also offered Mr C and his father symbolic remedies for any injustice they have been caused. This means there is nothing we could add by investigating the complaint further.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care and access to care records. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider data protection issues around access to Ms C’s care records. If the Ombudsman was to investigate and find failings in Ms C’s care provision causing her injustice, we could provide Ms C no remedy because she has since died. It is therefore unlikely investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about changes the Council is making to its extra care housing scheme. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate the Council’s response to Mrs X’s concerns about safeguarding a relative, Mrs Y. This is because I do not see evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that her mother’s care home caused damage to her mother’s fridge cable. This is because an investigation would not lead to any findings or worthwhile outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about poor care provided to the late Mr B. This is because further investigation by us could not add to the Care Provider’s response. We could not achieve a remedy for Mr B as he has now passed away.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to update him on its service improvement plan in 2022. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason to investigate now.

Summary: Ms D raises complaints on behalf of stakeholders of a Nursing Home. We should not investigate the complaints because they have already been independently investigated and some issues can only be resolved by the Courts.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s decision to move her mother to a different care home unless they can pay a top-up fee. We find the Council was at fault. This caused significant distress to Miss X. To address this injustice caused by fault the Council has agreed to several recommendations.

Summary: Mrs X complained the care provider, Didcot Care Home Ltd, failed to refund her father, Mr Y’s, deposit after the care home gave notice and he moved out in August 2023. The care provider was at fault as it failed to refund the deposit, issued a bill for hours of care which Mrs X was not aware of and had not agreed to, and for its failure to respond to her complaint. The care provider has agreed to refund the deposit and pay Mrs X £250 to acknowledge the frustration and time and trouble she was caused. It has also agreed to review its procedures.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about paying for care. 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 Ms B’s complaint about adult social care services. The Council’s actions do not cause the injustice complained about and an investigation cannot achieve the outcome Ms B seeks.

London Borough of Bexley (23 011 898)

Summary: Mr X complained that care workers were not adequately trained and did not have the level of experience required to care for his late mother. He says on occasions they failed to attend for visits at the right time. Mr X also complains the Care Provider terminated the care package without notice. We find no fault by the Care Provider.