Summary: We have found that there was a delay in the appointment of a care worker and delays in the carer’s payment and the completion of a CHC checklist. We have not found fault regarding the safeguarding enquiry minutes nor the request for a backdated payment. The delays have caused distress and the Council has apologised and agreed to pay a symbolic sum.

Summary: Mr X complained Baycroft Flitwick Care Home wrongly refused to allow Ms Y to return to the Care Home when she was fit to be discharged from hospital. He complains the Care Home did not discuss concerns about Ms Y’s behaviour, her care needs, or its intention to terminate her placement with the family before making this decision. We found the Care Home’s failure to document the decision to terminate Ms Y’s placement and the reasons for it, or to give formal written notice to Ms Y or her family is fault. This has caused Ms Y and her family distress and uncertainty.

Summary: Ms B complains the Council did not take action about the concerns she raised about the NHS’s actions in relation to her son. It also delayed referring for advocacy. There was a delay in the Council making an advocacy referral. But this did not cause a significant injustice, as an advocate was in place by the time of a Care Act review.

Summary: The Council was at fault for how it assessed Ms X’s care needs. This meant she had to wait longer than she should have for a package of care. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X for the avoidable distress caused.

Summary: There was some delay on the part of the Council in obtaining information as part of a historic safeguarding complaint and that caused distress and frustration for Mrs T. The Council agrees to apologise for that delay.

Summary: The Council was not at fault for deciding to allow an estranged relative to visit their family member in a care home. There was some fault by the Council in its level of communication but it has offered a suitable remedy for any injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about changes to Direct Payments when Mr Y transitioned to Adult Social care. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an adult social care assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, even though the complainant disagrees. It is unlikely we would add to the Council’s investigation or reach a different outcome. The complainant wanted a reassessment; the Council already offered this if the person using the service agreed.

Summary: Mrs B complained that the organisations failed to provide a specialist chair for her father, Mr C, which he needed as part of his Section 117 aftercare, which is jointly funded by the Council and ICB. We have upheld Mrs B’s complaint about the Council, as the Council has proposed actions which resolve the outstanding issues.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s this complaint that the Council did not inform her of care charges. Ms X’s complaint is late, and it was reasonable for her to have complained sooner

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her financial assessment. This is because some of her complaint is late with no good reason for the delay. On the part that is not late, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

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

Summary: We found the Council at fault for failing to properly explain care home fees to Ms X’s representatives and for its record keeping. These faults caused Ms X’s representatives avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to them to recognise the injustice caused.

Summary: We have found fault with the Council for how it handled Mrs X’s son’s care contribution financial reassessment. This caused the family avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice.

Summary: There was fault by the Council when considering some disability related expenditure during a financial assessment. The Council failed to properly record its reasons whether certain expenses, including physiotherapy, were a disability related expense. Re-considering the disability related expenses remedies the injustice to Ms X and her late mother.

Summary: Ms X complains for Mrs Y about the way the Council dealt with her care and support needs when she was discharged from hospital, so she stayed in a care home for longer than needed causing distress and financial loss. We found fault because the Council delayed in assessing Mrs Y’s care and support needs and submitting a budget application for a home care package. The Council has accepted it was at fault. It has already apologised to Mrs Y for the distress caused which was suitable action for it to take. So, we have completed our investigation.

Summary: Ms X complained that the organisations involved in care and support for Ms Y failed to share a crisis plan, did not recognise her symptoms or put the right support in place, and did not give enough time to remove her belongings when moving to a new care home. We found fault by the Trust for not exploring this issue further, leading to uncertainty for Ms Y and Ms X. The Trust has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice caused. We found no fault in the actions of the Care Provider, ICB, and Council.

Summary: We found there was no fault by Surrey County Council concerning their decision not to backdate care fee funding beyond April 2025.

Summary: Ms Y complained about the Council’s delayed handling of her relatives request for a deferred payment agreement. The Council agreed it was at fault and had caused delays. It apologised and reimbursed care costs from when it found the agreement should have been in place. Based on the evidence available, we found the Council had properly acknowledged its fault, remedied the injustice this caused, and took appropriate steps to limit such delays.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the care assessed and provided for Mr X by the Council. This is because the matters complained of have been raised in a court of law and we are thus legally prevented from considering them.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions regarding direct payments for care to Mr X’s late mother. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council decided to stop direct payments and offer commissioned care to warrant our further involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council handled Mr Z’ finances and care plan. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. We will not investigate her complaint about poor communication because we could not add to any previous investigation.

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 this complaint about the way the Council considered concerns reported by the complainant in line with its safeguarding procedures. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about data protection. The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider and decide complaints about data protection.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about liability for personal injury and lost wages. This is because X has an alternative legal remedy to achieve what they are looking for and it is reasonable to expect them to use it.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council. It based its decision that Mr X did not need supported living accommodation on an assessment of his needs. It paid for hotel accommodation for around nine months and supported Mr X to get housing help from the housing authority.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint by Mr Y about the Council’s assessment of his late mother, Mrs X’s care needs, its response to Mr Y’s challenge to this, and his complaint on Mrs X's behalf. We cannot remedy any injustice to Mrs X, and there is not enough evidence of remaining injustice to Mr Y to warrant ourfurther involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint about her mother’s financial assessment because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the financial assessment completed by the Council for adult social care charges. This is because the issues have been mentioned as part of the legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled Ms E’s adult social care. This is because we have decided any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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 considered her application and appeal to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s Blue Badge application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed his application and reviewed its decision to justify an investigation.

Derby City Council (25 000 213)

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s actions and decisions around her mother’s discharge from hospital and admission to a residential care home. We found fault through poor communication and record keeping about the discharge to assess process and charging arrangements for a short-term bed which caused distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment.

Summary: We did not find fault with the Council’s Care Act assessment of Mr X or its handling of his reasonable adjustment requests. We found fault with the Council failing to initially provide the outcome of the Care Act assessment to Mr X and for placing Mr X on a pending list for a further Care Act assessment in error. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X for the uncertainty its fault caused.

Summary: Miss X complained on behalf of Mr Y about his previous social worker’s alleged conduct during an in-person meeting and how the Council failed to properly investigate the matter. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mr Y. The Council already remedied the injustice caused.

Summary: We do not find fault with how the Council assessed and considered placement and funding for Mr X’s residence at a care home.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council pursuing her for payment of her mother’s care. This is because her complaint is late with no good reason for the delay.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about evidence sent by the Council to the Court of Protection as part of court proceedings. This is because the matters raised in the complaint were the subject of court action or related closely enough to mean we could not investigate them separately.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with Ms X, including how it safeguarded her and the subsequent care proceedings. This is because the complaint is late and there are not sufficient good reasons to exercise discretion to consider it now.

Summary: Miss X complained about the care commissioned by the Council regarding her son, Mr Y’s supported living accommodation. Miss X says the care provider’s actions caused her significant avoidable distress, negatively impacted her mental and physical health and placed Mr Y at risk of neglect and financial abuse. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and Mr Y, provide a financial remedy and complete a review of Mr Y’s care and support plan.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her mother, Mrs Y’s hospital discharge. This is because the complaint is late and it was reasonable for Mrs X to have complained sooner. Even if we did investigate, we could not add to the Council’s investigation.

Summary: The Council was at fault for delay in carrying out an annual review of Mr S’s care and support plan. The Council should apologise and make a financial payment to remedy the distress this caused. The Council has offered to carry out an annual review which limits any further injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled a blue badge renewal and X’s data. This is because we have decided any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, and the information commissioner’s office is better placed to consider the data complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a Blue Badge application. This is mainly because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant investigation.