Summary: Mr Y complained about the way Acton Care Centre, commissioned by the Council, provided care to his late mother-in-law (Mrs X) and acted following her fall. Mr Y also said the care provider Gold Care Homes failed to respond to his complaint. We found fault with the Council for its failure to ensure its commissioned care home met all the fundamental standards of care. The Council’s fault caused injustice to Mr and Mrs Y. The Council has agreed to apologise and make symbolic payments to Mr and Mrs Y to acknowledge their distress. The Council has also agreed to work with the care provider to ensure service improvements.

Summary: The Council was at fault for the delay in completing Mr Y’s financial assessment, but its remedy was appropriate. I found no fault in the care assessment or care planning, so there is no further role for this office.

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his mother, Mrs Y, about the Council’s failure to respond to his requests for respite care for her. The Council was at fault for failing to respond to one request and delaying in responding to another. It also delayed in responding to his complaint. This caused Mr X and Mrs Y frustration, uncertainty and to miss out on respite. The Council should apologise and make a symbolic financial remedy to recognise this.

Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of Miss Y about the way the Council dealt with Miss Y’s transition from children’s services to adult social care. The Council was at fault for delaying in discussing care and funding options when the staying put arrangement was due to expire. This caused Ms X uncertainty. The Council should apologise and make a symbolic payment to recognise this.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about recovery of care costs. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council completed repairs when the complainant reported damage after it provided disabled aids and adaptations at the complainant’s property. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about adult social care charging by the Council. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement.

Summary: Miss X complained the care home failed to properly communicate with her about Mr X’s care and failed to meet her agreed reasonable adjustments. The Council was at fault, causing distress and upset. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X, make a payment to recognise the injustice and agree new reasonable adjustments.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about social care support provided by the Council. This is because this is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a drug and alcohol service commissioned by the Council. This is because any fault has not caused a significant personal injustice to Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's concessionary travel pass renewal arrangements and its refusal to provide a renewal reminder as a reasonable adjustment. We cannot determine whether the Council has breached the Equality Act or discriminated against Mr X, as those matters can only be decided by the courts. The Council has already considered the issues raised through its complaints process and identified service improvements. Further investigation is unlikely to achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Summary: The Council’s commissioned care provider Medacs was at fault in the way it calculated the numbers of care hours it delivered, and as a result Mrs K (and other service users) were overcharged for their care. The overpayments have now been re-credited. The Council agrees to make a further payment to recognise the distress caused at the time and by a delay in resolving the matter.

Summary: Ms F complained about the Council’s decisions that she does not have eligible care and support needs and was not eligible for extra care housing. We found no fault.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to act on safeguarding concerns they raised about the actions of a neighbour causing distress and impact on the mental health of Mr X. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. So, we have completed our investigation.

Summary: There was fault on the part of the Council in which the way it assumed Ms T would apply for deputyship of her late father’s affairs. It incorrectly put in place a Deferred Payment Arrangement (DPA) without agreement. It has reimbursed the DPA fees and interest which should not have been charged but should in my view go further to recognise the frustration and distress its actions have caused.

Summary: The Council is at fault for the lengthy delay in completing Ms X’s financial assessment review and its limited communication during this period. This caused Ms X avoidable distress and uncertainty about her care costs. There is not enough evidence to show that the assessment decision itself was flawed or caused a financial injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about care charges for his mother. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s care charges. This is because the complaint was not brought to us in good time.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with her adult child’s residential placement. The law prevents us from investigating anything that has or is the subject of court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of eligibility for a Blue Badge. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s Blue Badge application because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered his application and appeal to justify an investigation

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council did not provide her with suitable care and support. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason she did not complain to us sooner.

Summary: Miss X complained the actions of the Council’s commissioned care provider caused Mr Y to be liable for unreasonable costs. She says this caused her unnecessary distress and financial strain. We find the Council at fault which caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment and take service improvement action.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council failing to provide support to her adult son for him to access an online course. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council.

Summary: Miss B complained that the Council delayed in reaching a decision about her mother, Mrs C’s long term care needs, misrepresented Mrs C’s capacity to make decisions about her care and communicated poorly with Miss B. We found there was some delay in progressing Mrs C’s case between May and September 2025 which caused Miss B and Mrs C uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to them and make a symbolic payment.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s failure to renew her Blue Badge, despite there being no change in her circumstances. We found the Council to be at fault because it was unable to demonstrate it carried out a proper assessment of Mrs X’s disabilities. This left Mrs X uncertain as to whether her application was properly considered. To remedy this injustice, the Council will apologise and reconsider her application. It will also take action to improve its service.

Summary: Miss B complained that a Council-funded care home failed to provide appropriate or timely care to her father, Mr C in the last few weeks of his life. She also complained that it failed to communicate properly with the family during this period. We found the Council-funded care home at fault. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss B and make a symbolic payment to her.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about a debt relating to Mrs Y’s care. Miss X became aware of the debt in 2022 and there is not a good reason for the delay in complaining to us about the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s Blue Badge application because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to justify an investigation.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to provide overnight respite care to her son. We found fault due to poor transition planning which meant Ms X’s son did not receive overnight respite care for an extended period causing them both distress. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and review its transition processes between children’s and adult’s services in addition to the improvements it has already made to its respite referral process.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council has wrongly refused his application for a Blue Badge. We found no fault in the way the Council assessed Mr X’s applications and made its decisions.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Care Home excluding him from meetings in relation to his mother who is a resident. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Care Provider and there is another body better placed to consider his complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of a Deferred Payment Arrangement and recovery of care charges relating to Dr Z's late mother because we cannot achieve the outcome sought.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that her social worker failed to respond to her contact and the Council has refused to allocate her a new social worker. We could not add to the Council’s response or achieve a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council made a best interest decision to place Ms Y in a care home. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to challenge the Council’s decision at the Court of Protection.

Summary: The Council was at fault for delaying Mrs Y’s financial assessment and for failing to establish appropriate support and communication arrangements for Mrs Y when it shared her care plan and financial assessment letters to ensure she received and understood the information sent to her. This caused avoidable distress and uncertainty for Mrs Y about the amount she would be required to contribute towards her care. The Council was not at fault for arranging a care package to meet Mrs Y’s assessed eligible needs, and there is no evidence to conclude the care package was unnecessary. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs Y to remedy the injustice caused. The Council agreed to further make a service improvement.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council would not fund the full cost of a placement at their preferred care home for Mr Y and asked the family to pay a significant weekly top up. We found the Council’s failure to offer Mr Y suitable alternative accommodation which did not require a top up is fault. As was the significant delay in responding to Miss X’s complaint. These faults caused Mr Y and his family distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Miss X. It will also remind staff of the need to ensure there is a genuine choice of accommodation and review its processes.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council providing poor care to his mother, Mrs Y. This is because it is late.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s social workers involvement with her late father, Mr Y. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and a further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a blue badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to his mother, Mrs Y. This is because we do not consider him to be an appropriate representative.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not involving Mr X in decisions about a relative’s care. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how care visits were carried out. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and we cannot achieve the desired outcome.