| Please note: our decisions are published six weeks after they are issued to councils, care providers and the person who has made the complaint. The cases below reflect the caselaw and guidance available at the time of issue and the individual circumstances of each case. Lotus Care (Cressington Court) Limited (23 009 903)
Summary: Mr X complains the care provider failed to explain the reasons for injuries his mother-in-law sustained while she was living in a care home. We have discontinued our investigation because another body or bodies are better placed to investigate the matter. Bristol City Council (23 010 584)
Summary: Ms A complained about the way professionals assessed her, and treated her, as part of a Mental Health Act assessment. We have not found fault in the way the professionals assessed the need to detain Ms A. During the local complaints process the Council accepted it could have done more to protect MsAs dignity when taking her out of the house and it apologised. We consider this was a proportionate response and have not recommended more action. Wakefield City Council (23 010 942)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Bs complaint about treatment and care provided to his late brother, Mr C, by the Trust and the Council. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would find fault. Bupa Care Homes (GL) Limited (23 012 277)
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mrs Xs complaint about court action. In respect of her complaints about the care and treatment at the care home, there is no evidence that the actions of the care provider have caused any injustice. Curantis Healthcare Limited (23 012 521)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Ds complaint that his late mothers, Mrs Cs, care providers failed to ensure she received her medication as prescribed. This is because we could not make a different finding to that already given to Mr D even if we investigated. We could not now provide Mrs C with a remedy even if we investigated as she is now deceased. Kent County Council (23 012 619)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils refusal to agree to fund one-to-one care for Mr B resulting in jeopardising his placement. This is because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an investigation. Peterborough City Council (23 013 402)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils refusal to apply a discretionary property disregard to Mrs Es property. 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. London Borough of Redbridge (23 014 023)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about incorrect invoicing for his late fathers domiciliary care package. This is because the matter has been resolved prior to our involvement. London Borough of Brent (22 004 630)
Summary: Ms Y complained the accommodation the Council and ICB arranged for her brother, Mr X, as part of his Section 117 aftercare was unsuitable for his needs. We found fault with the Council and ICB in terms of a delay in acting on concerns Ms Y raised about the placement. We also found fault with lack of mental health care and support provided to Mr X by the Trust during the same period. The Council, ICB and Trust have agreed to provide an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused. Shropshire Council (23 001 890)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to deal properly with the arrangements for his mothers care when she left hospital, resulting in a failure to involve him properly in the decision-making process. The Council failed to follow the Mental Capacity Act 2005 when assessing his mothers needs. This left Mr X feeling the Council had not properly involved him in the process. The Council needs to apologise and take action to improve its services. Tamaris Healthcare (England) Limited (23 003 977)
Summary: Mr X complains Southfield Court Care Home failed to provide his wife with the care she should have received, causing avoidable distress and resulting in him moving her to another care home. The care provider accepts Mr & Mrs Xs experience of the Care Home was not what it should have been. It has apologised and has taken steps to improve its performance. The Care Homes failings resulted in a loss of dignity to Mrs X, avoidable distress and put her at risk of harm. The care provider needs to waive 1,000 of the outstanding fees to remedy that injustice. Northumberland County Council (23 012 779)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care provided to Mrs Bs late mother, Mrs C, by her care provider on behalf of the Council. This is because further investigation could not add to the Care Providers response or make a different finding of the kind Mrs B wants. Hampshire County Council (23 013 799)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils handling of Mrs Xs care support. This is because we could not add to the Councils previous investigation. Hampshire County Council (23 013 900)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils handling of Mr Xs care support. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. Aspire Home Carers Limited (23 005 997)
Summary: Mrs D complains the Care Provider failed to return a deposit paid for residential care and only provided two weeks notice for Mrs D to leave. The Care Provider is at fault for failing to return deposit money and for failing to give enough notice when asking MrsD to leave. To remedy the complaint the Care Provider should return the deposit money and apologise to the complainant. Darlington Borough Council (23 006 561)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr As complaint about a Trust, and a Council regarding his detention under the Mental Health Act. This is because we cannot investigate the decision to detain him as he had already lodged an appeal against his detention. In addition, regarding his other issues it would not be proportionate to launch an investigation into those issues. Derbyshire County Council (23 013 490)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint that the Council acted with fault when it would not allow him to make an urgent referral for a care and support assessment for his mother who was in hospital. There is not enough evidence of fault or injustice to warrant investigating. Nottinghamshire County Council (23 015 791)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils discharge planning related to a person who received care from the Care Provider. The Council has now agreed to take suitable action to remedy the financial impact on the Care Provider. Durham County Council (23 007 331)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council investigated safeguarding concerns and that she had not been allowed to communicate with her husband since he moved out. There was no fault in the Councils actions. Bristol City Council (23 009 326)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Bs complaint about the way her mother, Mrs C, was discharged from a rehabilitation unit, and about her admission to and the discharge from hospital. This is because we would be unlikely to add to the responses Mrs B has already received from the organisations. London Borough of Croydon (23 013 486)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about the Councils refusal to amend a care needs assessment. She also complains the Council failed to complete a carers assessment for her between 2012 and 2019, and about the Councils handling of her subject access requests. This is because the alleged fault has not caused significant injustice. In addition, there is another body better placed to consider Mrs Xs complaint, and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the element of Mrs Xs complaint that is late. Essex County Council (23 013 619)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about access to information; the Information Commissioners Office is better placed to consider this complaint. London Borough of Harrow (23 005 280)
Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council decided what adaptations to carry out to Mr Bs property and the Council progressed matters in a timely matter. There was fault as the Council should have told Mr and Mrs B that the works to a rear gate exceeded the approved grant figure before it started the works. There was also fault in the Councils communications once Mr and Mrs B had complained. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a symbolic sum to reflect the distress caused by the fault. Sheffield City Council (23 007 943)
Summary: Mr X complained that the Council refused his application for a Blue Badge. We found the Council incorrectly interpreted the guidance in failing to give Mr X the opportunity to provide supporting information from his GP. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to invite Mr X to submit information from his GP in support of his application and to reassess the application considering all the information provided. London Borough of Enfield (23 007 975)
Summary: The Council was at fault for the way it carried out an Occupational Therapist assessment of Ms X. This caused her injustice as Ms X cannot be sure her needs were properly considered and Ms X could have received an assessment under the Care Act 2014 sooner. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council agreed to apologise to Ms X, make a payment for the distress she experienced and carry out an new Occupational Therapist assessment. Colleycare Limited (23 012 810)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care in a care home, and how the Care Provider investigated a fall. The Care Provider has accepted fault, apologised, and given training to the involved care worker. It is unlikely we could achieve anything further. The complainant has unanswered questions, but that is not a significant injustice to justify our involvement. Bath and North East Somerset Council (23 013 855)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about lack of care and support provided to Ms B over the past seven years. This is because Ms B could have come to us sooner if she was concerned about the Councils actions. There is no good reason for us to exercise discretion to investigate this late complaint now. London Borough of Hounslow (23 015 404)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xs complaint that the Councils assessment of her for a Blue Badge was flawed. there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. |
