Summary: Ms X complains the Council was at fault in the way it carried out a non-residential financial assessment on her mother Mrs Y to calculate her contribution towards her care costs causing distress and financial loss. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council carried out the financial assessment. So, we have completed our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to only supply a moulded seat for his child, rather than replacing the whole seat. Mr X also complains the Council has refused to reimburse him for the new chair he purchased privately. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s investigation into comments from her daughter’s social worker. The Council has appropriately investigated and responded to Miss X’s concerns. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, and we cannot achieve what Miss X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the way the Council considered her housing needs in 2022. 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 Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to respond to his request for information regarding what the Council’s process is for handling and closing the files of vulnerable people in care. This is because there is another body better placed to consider the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s communication with Mrs X about her eligibility for benefits. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: Mr X says the Council delayed pursuing an alleged debt, wrongly pursued the debt when he had provided evidence of how he spent the money, wrote to him at the wrong address and should not have instructed bailiffs when it knew he was vulnerable. The Council was not at fault for pursuing the debt and considered Mr X’s vulnerability when referring the case to bailiffs. The Council delayed seeking repayment of the money and wrote to Mr X at the wrong address. An apology, payment to Mr Y, agreeing a payment plan and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: Mrs B says the Council failed to provide her with advice or information about care options when the care provider increased her care costs, sent her an incorrect bill, wrongly closed her case and failed to explain why the large increase in costs was justified. The Council failed to provide Mrs B with alternatives when telling her about the increased care costs, delayed providing her with further information and sent her an incorrect invoice. An apology, payment to Mrs B and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has delayed in assessing the change in her father, Mr Y’s care needs and has refused to backdate support to January 2023 when the care increased. As a result Mr Y has accrued care charges he cannot afford. The delays and failings in the way the Council dealt with Mrs X’s requests for additional care and support for Mr Y are fault. This fault has caused Mrs X and Mr Y an injustice.

Summary: Mr H complained about how the Council investigated and responded to safeguarding allegations made against Mrs J. Mr H said this caused Mrs J to lose employment with a new employer and affected her mental health. We did not find fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council left his mother without support. He also complains about the Council’s response to his concerns about his mother being vulnerable to abuse from a third party. This is because he is not a suitable representative to make this complaint on behalf of his mother.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to care properly for Mrs Y following a fall. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to result in a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs D’s complaint about the way the Council considered safeguarding concerns she raised about her mother, Mrs F. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council did not complete a grant application. That is because the complaint is late. In any event, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in responding to enquiries by him and the coroner’s office. The Council has apologised for the delay, which is appropriate, and we could not add to its investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care arranged by the Council. This is because the Council has accepted fault, reduced the charges for the care, and apologised and offered a payment to the complainant. It is unlikely we could achieve anything further. The complainant would like all information held about the person who received the care. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider access to information rights.

Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of Mr Y, about delays in completing Mr Y’s financial assessment and issuing invoices, incorrect care charging, and failure to explain Mr Y’s care costs. We find the Council at fault which caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty, frustration, and distress. The Council has instigated service improvements to prevent recurrence which is a partial remedy. It should also apologise to Mr X and make a symbolic payment to him to address the injustice caused.

Summary: Ms Y complains about the Council’s mistakes in record keeping which impacted its care for her brother. We find the Council is at fault and caused Mr A an injustice. We also consider there is a fault with the time the Council has taken to respond to Ms Y’s complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr A and Ms Y in recognition of this.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement when Mrs X raised safeguarding concerns about her father. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council met Mr X’s housing and social care needs. That is because we have previously considered most of Mr X’s complaints and there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council has dealt with more recent matters.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue a Blue Badge to a group that provides transport for disabled people. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about damage to his mobility scooter. This is because an investigation is unlikely to achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Summary: The care provider charged the fees for the notice period in accordance with the contract which Mrs X signed. The care provider acknowledges there were some inadequacies in the decoration of Mr X’s room and the operation of the call buzzer, and there are some discrepancies in the response to Mrs X’s complaint about the standard of care. The care provider has already written off a portion of the fees and no further remedy is required.

Summary: Mr F complained on behalf of his mother, that the Council failed to disregard her property in its financial assessment and has wrongly decided that she deprived herself of assets to avoid paying towards her care costs. We found no fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint from Mr X about Mr Y’s transfer to an unsuitable room within his residential care home. There is not a good reason for the delay in bringing the matter to the Ombudsman. We also could not achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to provide his mother with sufficient information about the disabled facilities grant conditions. Specifically, that a local land charge would be applied to the property. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the standard of care provided to his mother-in-law by her care home. 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 handling of a reported safeguarding concern. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about adult social care provided in Scotland.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaints about his care provider. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council recovering care fees. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a care provider’s charging policy after a resident’s death. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the actions of an AMHP acting on behalf of the Council, about information in his records, and that the Trust did not make reasonable adjustments in responding to his complaint. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would find fault, or add to the responses Mr B has already received.