| 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. London Borough of Enfield (22 013 393)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint about the outcome of her occupational therapy assessment in relation to her request for equipment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Suffolk County Council (23 004 587)
Summary: Ms C complains the Council failed to properly assess her needs, provide services, and support her to move into independent living. The Council is at fault for failing to reassess Ms C when there was a change in circumstances, raise her expectations about services it would provide, and support her through a transition period. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms C and make her a symbolic payment. It will also remind staff about the need to review needs when there is a change in circumstances. Derbyshire County Council (23 006 045)
Summary: Following another complaint we considered whether the Councils policy for assessing people moving from fully funding their own residential care to the Council funding their care fees was potentially flawed. The Councils policy appears in line with the Care Act and if officers follow the policy there is no potential injustice to others. North East Lincolnshire Council (23 008 605)
Summary: Ms C complained about the way the Council treated her as her sisters carer, since her sister moved in with her. There is no fault in the Councils actions. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (23 009 308)
Summary: Ms A complained about the way the Council dealt with a request for a financial assessment for her father. She complained the Council delayed in providing the assessment and failed to respond to her adequately. The Council is at fault here. We recommend the Council remind staff of the importance of processing assessments in a timely manner. Sheffield City Council (23 012 401)
Summary: Mrs X and Miss X complain about the events surrounding Miss Xs removal from home and detention in hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983. We have decided not to investigate their complaints about the Council. Leeds City Council (23 013 363)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils delay in telling a relative of a death of an adult social care home resident. The Council has accepted fault and explained what went wrong and how it will improve service. The Council has apologised for the impact of its fault. It is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome. The Ombudsman cannot help the relative to get the deceaseds assets, the Council is right to say the relative should get the correct legal status to achieve this. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (23 015 238)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in confirming adult social care fees. This is because we are satisfied with the Councils actions of reducing the bill and offering a payment to apologise for the anxiety caused by the delay. Anchor Hanover Group (23 015 679)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Care Provider handled Mr Ys oral hygiene. We could not achieve a more meaningful outcome for Mrs X. The Care Provider has offered her a personal remedy in line with our guidance, and the Care Quality Commission is involved to oversee any service improvements. City of Wolverhampton Council (23 015 917)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care provided to the late Mrs B. This is because Mr D has not suffered a significant enough injustice from the care providers actions to warrant an ombudsman investigation. Change, Grow, Live (23 017 685)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about the service provided by PSS. This is because it is not an adult social care provider within our remit. Dorset Council (23 009 113)
Summary: Mr X complained about the Councils handling of the bathroom work carried out under his disabled facilities grant application. The Council failed to communicate with Mr X while acting as his agent with the contractor. The Council will apologise and pay Mr X 100 to recognise the distress caused. London Borough of Havering (23 013 923)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging Mrs Xs father for his care. Mrs X says they were told her fathers reablement care would be free. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Rockley Dene Homes Ltd (23 014 030)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xs complaint about the care her mother received at a care home. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise our discretion and investigate. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (23 015 209)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about the outcome of his fathers occupational therapy assessment in relation to his request for a stairlift. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (23 015 329)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging Mr C for care he received on discharge from hospital in 2022. This is because further investigation by us could not add to the Councils response. Cheshire West & Chester Council (23 015 600)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council regarding its communication with Mr B. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault having caused a significant injustice to warrant an ombudsmans investigation. Further investigation by us could not add to the Councils responses and it would be reasonable for Mr B to ask the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) to consider his complaints about being denied access to information he wants. Warrington Council (23 016 700)
Summary: The complainants representative (Miss X) said the Council failed to provide her son (Y) with the adequate social care support when he became an adult. She also complained about the Councils lack of support for her as Ys carer. We did not find fault in the way the Council carried out its social care duties for Y and Miss X. Lancashire County Council (23 005 647)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council provided wrong invoices for her late mothers care and failed to reply to her complaints about this matter. The Council has accepted it was at fault. It has already apologised and offered a payment in recognition of the time and trouble and frustration caused to Mrs X. The Council has also agreed to carry out a written review of the case to prevent a recurrence of the fault we found. East Sussex County Council (23 006 906)
Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council charged for her care. The Council was at fault for delays during the assessment process after Ms X was discharged from hospital and failing to share important information about her care charges. The Council has agreed to remedy Ms Xs injustice. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (23 013 067)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about the Council forcing him to accept direct payments due to his preferred care provider not being on the Councils provider list. He says he struggled to manage the administration responsibilities. This is because an investigation would not lead to any worthwhile outcomes. Hampshire County Council (22 010 169)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to meet her care needs after she left hospital in January 2023, leaving her at times without support or not enough support to meet her assessed care needs. The Councils care planning was poorly documented making it difficult to understand its decisions. MrsX was left without care for 48 hours when a live-in carer left, but that was not due to fault by the Council. The Councils responses to Mrs Xs complaints contained inaccurate and misleading information. The Council needs to apologise to Mrs X for the distress it has caused her. Sheffield City Council (23 004 629)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Councils care provider, Valley Wood care home, failed to look after her late mother properly causing avoidable distress. Valley Woods care planning did not take account of all Mrs Ys needs. The support it provided was not always in line with her assessed needs. It has been unable to provide Mrs Ys medication administration records. The Council needs to apologise to Mrs X and pay her 250 for the distress she has been caused. Dorset Council (23 012 475)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial assessment for adult social care charges. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. The Council completed the assessment in line with its relevant policy. Essex County Council (23 003 763)
Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council placing a charge against the late Mrs Bs property or Mr Es complaints about the way the Council arranged and commissioned care for her in 2016. This is because Mr E could have come to us sooner if he was concerned about Mrs Bs placement or paying for Mrs Bs care. Westminster City Council (23 007 195)
Summary: Miss X complained about disrepair issues in the temporary accommodation her mother is currently in, and it is not adapted to assist with her mothers assessed mobility and disability needs. We found the Council at fault with delays with a suitability review and sending a referral. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused. Warrington Council (23 009 562)
Summary: We found fault with the Council for the inadequate non-residential care provided to the complainant (Mr Y) by Premium Care Limited and its complaint-handling. We also found fault with the Council for not consulting Mr Ys daughter (Mrs X) about proposed changes to Mr Ys care plan. The Council has accepted its fault and the injustice caused to Mr Y and Mrs X and offered suitable remedies. Suffolk County Council (23 013 946)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils refusal to issue a blue badge. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to justify investigating. Leeds City Council (23 015 024)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint the Council said he was not eligible for a supported living placement. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Norfolk County Council (23 015 157)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information the Council failed to give in 2018 about paying for adult social care. The complainants knew about the issues in 2018 and complained to the Council. The Council responded and gave a financial resolution and directed the complainants to the Ombudsman in early 2019. The complainants made no complaint to the Ombudsman. There is no good reason to investigate this late complaint. Avery Homes Cliftonville Limited (23 000 761)
Summary: On the evidence we have seen, there was some fault in the communications between the care home and Miss B, its organisation of the visits between Miss B and her father and its failure to adhere to the timescales in its complaints policy. We recommend that the care home apologises to Miss B and pays her a symbolic amount as a remedy and makes a service improvement. | 