Summary: There is no evidence the care provider failed to seek medical attention promptly or give a good standard of care to the late Mr X. The care provider acknowledges it did not always communicate with the family as it might have done but I am satisfied its apology and retraining was sufficient.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse to renew the complainant’s Blue Badge. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about poor communication from adult social care services. The Council has accepted fault and acknowledged the impact on the complainant by an apology and payment. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the quality of care provided to his mother by her care home between 2021 and 2023. This is because an investigation would not lead to any further findings or worthwhile outcomes.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about matters related to the Council’s handling of her relative’s care charges. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment and refusal of his daughter Miss Y’s blue badge application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s process to warrant us investigating and it would be reasonable for Mr X to make a further application to the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council refused to issue him a Disabled Persons Freedom Pass. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the actions of one of the Care Provider’s employees at a café it runs. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is not made about actions that involve, or are connected to, the provision of adult social care.

Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council charged for Mrs Y’s care and for delays in completing financial assessments. Ms X said this left Mrs Y with a large, unexpected care bill. We do not find fault with the way the Council assessed Mrs Y’s finances or how it reached its decision to charge for the care she received.

Summary: Mrs J complained the Council failed to hold a discharge planning meeting and wrongly charged her for care after she was discharged from care under the Mental Health Act 1983. It was fault not to hold the meeting; the Council has already remedied the injustice caused by this. There was no fault in the charging for Mrs J’s care.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to reassess the home care package provided to his mother which caused uncertainty about whether it was meeting her needs. We have found fault by the Council in the delay in responding to the reassessment request and in not completing a carers assessment. We consider the agreed action of an apology, symbolic payment and procedural reviews provides a suitable remedy.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with the financial assessment for her mother, Mrs Y. We did not find fault with the Council’s decision to include a funeral plan in Mrs Y’s financial assessment. However, the Council was at fault for delaying the completion of the financial assessment and its response to Mrs X’s complaint. This caused Mrs X distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X to recognise this.

Summary: Ms F complained about how the Council dealt with her requests for adult social care support since summer 2023 and its charges for a respite placement. We did not find the Council at fault. It could only act and provide the support Ms F agreed to, and it was entitled to charge her for care costs she had received following the outcome of its financial assessment. Other parts of Ms F’s complaint were not investigated as these were late or related to a private family dispute.

Summary: Mrs X says the Council failed to properly consider her safeguarding concerns, failed to update her, failed to intervene to arrange a visit protocol, misrepresented what her mother had said and failed to carry out mental capacity assessments properly. There is no fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms X complained about the result of a financial assessment. She said the Council has not accounted for her mortgage, which means she doesn’t have enough money to live on. The Council is at fault for failing to explain in detail how it treats different mortgages in its policy and applying this to Ms X’s case, causing her emotional and financial distress. It has agreed to a package of remedies.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council handled a safeguarding concern she raised about her mum, Mrs Y. We find no fault in the Council’s actions or its decision making.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the care provider, on behalf of the Council, failed to respond to her concerns about safeguarding her relative, Mrs Y, did not report safeguarding incidents, and did not keep adequate records. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there are not enough indications of fault for us to investigate, and we are unlikely to add to the response she has already received from the care provider.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s commissioned care provider sending male carers to do personal care visits to his mother Mrs Y, delaying its assessment of a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) for Mrs Y and how it did that assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council allocating Mrs Y’s visits to male carers nor in the DFG decision-making process to warrant us investigating. Investigation of the reasons for the use of male carers would not result in a different finding or outcome. The time taken by the DFG process did not cause sufficient injustice to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the quality of care provided to her father by his care provider. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Care Provider not meeting his wife Mrs X’s care needs during her planned two-week respite stay, a staff member making comments to her which upset her, and how it dealt with his complaint. Investigation by us is unlikely to add to the Care Provider’s investigation nor achieve a different outcome. There is not enough evidence of actions by the Care Provider amounting to fault to warrant us investigating. We do not investigate providers’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial assessment for adult social care charges, and the Council’s decision about a deprivation of asset. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision-making process or reach a different outcome.

Summary: Mr D complained about the way the Council dealt with his adult social care support and his complaint about a social worker. We found a delay in assessing Mr D’s care and support needs and replying to his complaints. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Mr D £150 to remedy the distress this caused.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council took too long to complete a financial assessment for her husband’s care. She stated the delay meant her husband commissioned care he could not afford, and they have accrued debt for his care costs, which they would otherwise have avoided. We found fault by the Council for delay in completing Mr X’s financial assessment and, on the balance of probabilities, that he commissioned care he would otherwise have avoided. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and reduce the outstanding invoice for Mr X’s care costs.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council did not meet Mrs Y care and support needs. She says this impacted Mrs Y’s wellbeing. We find the Council at fault which caused Mrs Y injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs Y, issue her reviewed care and support plan and take service improvement action.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council carried out a financial assessment in respect of his mother, Mrs Y’s, care home placement. There was fault in how the Council carried out Mrs Y’s financial assessment and how it responded to Mr X’s complaint. This caused Mr X avoidable distress for which the Council agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy. It also agreed to review when it refers people for financial assessments and arrange a briefing for staff on costs of disregarded properties.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. This is because it is a late complaint. The complainant knew about the issues he complains about more than 12 months ago and there is no good reason he could not have pursued them sooner. We will not consider complaint handling where we are not looking at the issues complained about. But even if we did, the Council has accepted fault, acknowledged the impact and acted to improve future service. It is unlikely we would add to the Council’s investigation or achieve anything further.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not properly assess her mother Mrs Y’s needs for residential care and the associated charges for this. Mrs X said poor communication meant the family paid more than they expected to and caused them distress. There was one instance where the Council’s communication with Mrs X about charges for respite care could have been clearer, but this did not cause significant injustice. There was no fault in how the Council charged Mrs Y for her contribution to care costs, or her family for top-up fees.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council delayed assessing Mrs Y’s financial contribution for care. The Council was at fault as its communication was poor and there was significant delay in progressing the matter. The Council has agreed our recommended remedy for the frustration and time and trouble caused to Mrs X.

Summary: We found no fault on the part of a Council, Trust and Integrated Care Board in terms of their handling of Miss X’s section 117 aftercare.

Summary: There is evidence of some fault in the way the Council communicated the outcome of a financial assessment of Mrs Y’s domiciliary care charges. Consequently, there was a missed opportunity to make an informed decision about the cost of care.

Summary: The Council acknowledged it failed to properly deal with Mr X’s complaint about his wife’s care properly before a complaint was made to this office. It apologised and offered a satisfactory remedy. There is no outstanding injustice that requires intervention from this office.

Summary: We will not investigate a Care Provider’s response to Miss Y’s complaint about poor care. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We are unlikely to be able to add to the investigation already carried out.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to award a Blue Badge. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about client contributions for adult social care. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate the Council’s responses to Mrs X’s complaint about a relative’s decision to move back home. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We are unlikely to achieve anything worthwhile or add to the investigation already carried out.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to suspend direct payments to her. The Council has thoroughly investigated Ms X’s concerns and we could not add to its response nor achieve the outcome Ms X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council delayed in reviewing an adult social care assessment. The Council apologised for the delay and has now completed the review. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the charges from his late father’s Care Provider. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to respond to questions straightaway, and not allowing the council where the complainant lives to respond. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. The Council is the responsible body to meet the complainant’s adult social care needs, and has a communication plan in place to respond to his questions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse an application to renew a Blue Badge. We have not seen enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to reduce a care and support package. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with, or its actions relating to, Mr X being restricted visiting a relative at a care home in 2021. This is a late complaint, and I have not seen any good reasons why it could not have been made sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Social Workers making false complaints to the police about Mr X in 2016. This is because the complaint is late and the law prevents us from investigating anything that has been the subject of court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this Blue Badge complaint because the Council has now approved the application.

Summary: We upheld Ms X’s complaint. There was delay by the Council in completing social care assessments, drawing up care and support plans and commissioning a care package to enable Ms Y to return to her flat rather than remain in a care home for almost two years. There was also a failure to participate in best interests decisions around her care and support and housing. This caused avoidable distress and meant Ms Y was unable to see her partner. Ms Y/her family also incurred an avoidable financial loss because she/they paid for care privately. The Council has already taken appropriate action by apologising, reviewing financial assessments resulting in no care charges, making symbolic payment to reflect distress and refunding private care fees.

Summary: Mrs Z on behalf of her parents, complained the Council lost documents relating to a care assessment, delayed implementing a suitable care and failed to complete a carer’s assessment. Mrs Z says as a result she had to pay privately for carers to meet her parents’ needs. The Council failed to upload notes of a review meeting, failed to complete a carer’s assessment and delayed responding to a request from Mrs Z to discuss matters. A suitable remedy is proposed.

Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council took over management of her relative, Mr W’s finances. The Council was at fault for delay in chasing up the Department for Work and Pensions’ response to its application to become Mr W's financial appointee. It was also at fault for failing to act when it became aware there were issues with the application and for poor communication with Mr W’s mother, Mrs Y. This caused Mrs Y significant uncertainty and upset but did not cause Mr W an injustice. To remedy Mrs Y’s injustice, the Council will apologise and pay her £350. The Council will also identify what steps it will take to prevent similar fault in future.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council and an NHS Integrated Care Board (ICB) failed to meet his late wife’s need for nighttime care, after the NHS decided she was not eligible for NHS Continuing Healthcare. We have discontinued the investigation into his complaint about the Council, so the ICB can have an opportunity to investigate and respond to his complaint. If Mr X remains dissatisfied, we will then be able to consider a joint investigation into his complaints with the Health Service Ombudsman.

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s social care assessment. The Council has already accepted that she suffered some injustice, and has addressed it. There is not enough evidence of wider fault to justify further investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the decision to detain her under the Mental Health Act, or about how staff entered her home and transported her to hospital. This is because it would have been reasonable for Miss X to appeal to the mental health tribunal about the decision, and because we are unlikely to add to the responses she has already received from the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial assessment for contribution to adult social care fees. The Council has followed the rules and so there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint about how the Council handled her mother’s, Ms X’s care after her hospital discharge or that the Council accused her of asset deprivation. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to exercise discretion to disregard his share of a property for all means tested benefits and financial assessments. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the standard of support from the adult social care team to Mr Y’s late relative, Mr X. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate now.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to include her mother’s property as capital in her financial assessment and not to apply a discretionary disregard. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of adult social care charges because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse to renew his Blue Badge. The Council has invited him to re-apply for a Blue Badge. An investigation by us would not achieve anything more or lead to a different outcome.

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 Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to move her relative, Mrs Y, into a specific nursing home. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about matters related to her late mother’s care. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to consider it now.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about her late mother’s care charges. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to consider it now.