Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council handled her safeguarding concerns about her sister, Ms Y. Miss X also complained about delays in setting up the financial account. Miss X said this distressed her and financially impacted Ms Y’s estate. There was fault in the way the Council delayed sending invoices for Ms Y’s care. This frustrated Miss X. The Council has already remedied this fault.

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mr X’s complaint about how the Council made adaptations to his property. This is because most of Mr X’s complaint is outside our jurisdiction, and the parts of complaint we could consider do not warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled matters relating to Mr X’s son’s care and related fees. There is either not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation, or we could achieve nothing meaningful.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about payments made through the ‘Staying Put’ scheme. This is because we would be unlikely to achieve a different outcome or add to the Council’s investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care client contributions and the Council's handling of the matter. This is because the Council has already accepted fault and provided a suitable remedy. Further investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a Blue Badge application. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to complete a financial assessment and how it considered her concerns about care costs. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to safeguarding concerns. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council’s adult safeguarding involvement with Mr X’s mother and the quality of her care. There is not a good reason for the delay in Mr X complaining. In any event, investigation of later events would not achieve a different or more meaningful outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his blue badge application. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms X’s relative’s care in 2022. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care charges. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to set a personal budget that would meet his care needs and would provide a decent wage for prospective care workers. We did not find the Council to be at fault.

Summary: The Council was at fault. It delayed carrying out Mrs Y’s assessments when she was discharged from hospital, communicated poorly with Mrs Y’s family about her care placement and care charges and ordered incorrect equipment which delayed Mrs Y returning home. The Council will apologise, refund Mrs Y’s care contributions and pay Mrs Y a symbolic payment to acknowledge the distress and frustration caused to her because of the need for her emergency care home stay. The Council will also pay Mrs Y’s daughter, Mrs X, a symbolic payment for the frustration, confusion and distress caused. The Council has already put service improvements in place.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s adult social care department. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision to recover part of a Disabled Facilities Grant. This is because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B and Mrs C’s complaint about the Council’s involvement of them in care planning and decision making in relation to a family member. There is insufficient injustice to the family member to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing repayment depends for direct payments. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the quality of domiciliary care and associated charges. There is not a good reason for the delay in Mr X complaining about the matter. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s more recent actions.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of, and decision to refuse, her application for a Disabled Person’s Freedom Pass. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council assessed Mr X’s contribution to his care and then asked him to pay backdated charges. This is because we have decided any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council communicating directly with her relative, Mrs Y, despite her request for it not to. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his father, Mr Y’s, care and support needs during his hospital admission in February 2024, in particular its decision to make a referral to the Court of Protection. I have not investigated whether the Council wrongly applied to the Court of Protection in April 2024 or whether it should have investigated the unexplained bruises on Mr Y’s body further before deciding to carry out a safeguarding investigation as these matters are late. I have found no fault in the Council’s actions or in the length of time Mr Y remained in hospital between November 2024 and February 2025.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council managed Mr Y's care and support needs. The Council was at fault for a lack of communication, causing frustration and uncertainty. However, the Council has already taken suitable action to address the injustice to Mr Y.

Summary: The Council took too long to arrange direct payments after agreeing Ms Y, Mr X’s relative, could support Mr X. It has agreed to apologise to Mr X for the frustration this caused and make a payment to Ms Y to acknowledge the unpaid support she provided. We have not investigated the original delay in assessing Mr X’s needs and reaching a decision on Ms Y supporting him as the complaint was late. It was open to Mr X to complain to us at the time and there are no good reasons to consider this now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council managed Mr X’s daughter’s transition from children services to adult social care services. The Council remedied the injustice caused when it investigated Mr X’s complaint. We could not add to the previous investigation by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s poor communication. This is because further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an invoice the Council sent for home care charges. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

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 review to justify an investigation.

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 this complaint about Mrs X’s Blue Badge application because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care provided to Ms Y’s relative. This is because the core complaint matters are late and there are no good reasons for the Ombudsman to investigate now. And there is insufficient evidence of injustice in the Council’s complaints handling.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a housing repair matter. We cannot achieve the outcome Ms X is looking for.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s actions relating to her relative, Miss Y’s, care and support plan. We found fault because the Council failed to adequately explain that direct payments in Miss Y’s plan were being removed. This caused Miss Y avoidable distress and frustration. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss Y.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council pursued her for an outstanding care debt relating to her late mother, causing uncertainty and distress. The Council was at fault for delay and providing incorrect information. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment to reflect the injustice, and provide Mrs X with correct information about what it is seeking to recover.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the care provider’s handling of Mr Y’s care. She said this caused her family avoidable distress. She would like the care provider to make service improvements. We have ended our investigation because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Care Home preventing him from visiting his late relative before they died. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Care Provider.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a Freedom Pass application. This is because investigation by the Ombudsman would be unlikely to achieve significantly more.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Care Provider breaching her confidentiality. This is because it would be reasonable for Mrs X to refer her complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council providing inaccurate and false information about her to the Court of Protection. This is because the law prevents us from considering such matters which are part of court proceedings.

Summary: Ms X complained the Care Provider failed to provide adequate care to her mother, Mrs Y, and did not clearly explain its charging structure before care started. She said this caused avoidable uncertainty and frustration, as well as financial loss. We found no fault with the Care Provider’s actions. The Care Provider had already offered a satisfactory remedy for fault identified in the early complaints process.

Summary: We will not investigate a complaint about the care a Nursing Home provided to one of its residents. It is unlikely an investigation would find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about loses incurred by X due to the Council’s failure to find alternative accommodation for their tenant. This is because it would be reasonable to expect X to seek a remedy in court.