| 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. Herefordshire Council (23 016 122)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care charges. There is not enough evidence of fault in the care planning and financial assessment which led to the care charges. It is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (23 016 913)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint, as brought by his representative Mr Y, about the care firm commissioned by the Council to provide domiciliary care to him in 2023 and how it responded to his complaints. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Even if there were fault, the matters complained of do not cause Mr X such significant personal injustice to justify us investigating. There is no worthwhile outcome an investigation would now achieve for Mr X. We do not investigate correspondence and complaint handling when not investigating the core matters giving rise to the complaint. Suffolk County Council (23 016 981)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Bs complaint that his mother, Mrs D did not know Mr D would have to pay for his care. This is because we could not add to the Councils response or make a finding of the kind Mr B wants. Ideal Care Homes Ltd (23 017 086)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult care services because Mr Y has not suffered a significant enough injustice. Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (23 017 368)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged failure by a care provider to apply for NHS funded care for one of its service users. This is because the alleged injustice is speculative and contingent on eligibility being confirmed by the NHS. In any event, we are not the appropriate body to consider eligibility for NHS funded care as this is undertaken by integrated care boards which have their own appeals process. Essex County Council (23 009 545)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the actions of the care provider arranged by the Council after her father, Mr Y, fell at home. There was fault in how the care provider, acting on behalf of the Council, arranged for Mr Y to go into a care home, without seeking the Councils approval first. This led to Mr Y being charged for care he would not have been. The Council agreed to apologise, reimburse some of the care fees Mr Y was charged and remind its providers about the correct procedure to follow in future. Warwickshire County Council (23 012 717)
Summary: We do not uphold a complaint about a reduction in Mrs Xs care hours. The Council carried out a review of the care and support plan and agreed an increase in hours. The records indicate Mrs X declined those hours as she does not want personal assistants to do personal care. Norfolk County Council (22 011 181)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to communicate with him about his partners care, and placed restrictions on him visiting his partner in a care home. Mr X also complains the Council provided inaccurate information about him to the courts to revoke lasting power of attorney (LPA). We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about communication and visiting, as it is late and we see no good reason to investigate it now. Furthermore, we will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about the LPA as there has been court involvement in this matter. London Borough of Haringey (23 005 297)
Summary: Miss X complains about the Councils handling of her familys request in January 2022 for support to move her brother, Mr Y, into a permanent residential placement. The Council was at fault for failing to make any meaningful progress with Mr Ys case for over two years. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr Ys family for significant uncertainty, distress and frustration caused. The Council will also review its procedure to ensure such delays to no recur. Shropshire Council (23 007 164)
Summary: Mr F complained about how the Council managed his late uncles property and that it did not contact him when his uncle died. We found fault which caused uncertainty. The Council has agreed to review its appointeeship policy. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (23 008 623)
Summary: Miss Y complained the Council wrongly cancelled her application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. We have found fault by the Council causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising to Miss Y and making a payment to reflect the distress and difficulties its fault caused Miss Y and her family. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (23 009 022)
Summary: Mr F complained about how the Council dealt with his daughters financial assessment and the policy around this. We found fault with the Councils actions which caused injustice to Mr F and have recommended remedies. Serenity Integrated Care Limited (23 015 109)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Bs complaint about care she received in 2022. This is because the Care Provider has apologised and cancelled the charges. We are satisfied the injustice caused has been remedied by the Care Provider. There is no ongoing injustice to Mrs B warranting an ombudsman investigation. Derbyshire County Council (23 020 417)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about damage to her property. This is because we cannot determine liability for damages. It would be reasonable for Mrs X to make her claim to the Council, and then refer it to the small claims court if she remains dissatisfied. Cambridgeshire County Council (23 001 371)
Summary: Mrs A complains about an independent investigation report commissioned by a Council about the care of her son, Mr B. I found fault with some aspects of the investigation in relation to communication issues between the family and Mr Bs carers. The Council have agreed to apologise to Mrs A for the uncertainty caused by this fault. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (23 008 242)
Summary: Ms B complained about the actions of a care agency (commissioned by the Council) during an incident in May 2023. She also complained about the care agencys communications about what happened. We cannot say there was fault in the care agencys actions on the day of the incident but there was fault in its communications later which caused distress to Ms B. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a symbolic amount to Ms B. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (23 009 440)
Summary: Mrs C complained of poor communication by the Council about how the costs of her late fathers care in a nursing home would be funded. Mrs C says this caused avoidable anxiety and distress. We have found fault by the Council but consider the action it has already taken of an apology and improvements to its communication process provides a suitable remedy. Kent County Council (23 010 951)
Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Mrs Y's care arrangements. It acted properly and in accordance with the law. Norfolk County Council (23 012 435)
Summary: Mrs B complained about the Councils decision to charge her for reablement services after she left hospital. She said the Council had a duty to provide reablement services for free for up to 6 weeks. We have ended the investigation as the Council has agreed to send an apology letter and waive the charges. London Borough of Havering (23 015 281)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about care support and transport for her son, Mr Y. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (23 016 584)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to the outcome of an Ombudsman investigation. That is because the complaint is late. Additionally, the Council has commissioned an independent review into his concerns. It is reasonable for Mr X to allow that process to conclude, before we can consider any complaints Mr X may have about it. Norfolk County Council (23 017 050)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about neglect by his mothers care home. He says the care home took his mother to an appointment in an extremely inappropriate and undignified state of appearance and that the care home failed to tell him about the incident. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Brunelcare (23 017 355)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about privately arranged nursing care fees. The complainant argues the Care Provider should reduce the amount the resident pays following an award of NHS Funded Nursing Care. The contract does not specify this will be the case, so it is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve the outcome the complainant wants. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to take the matter to court, to decide the legal interpretation of the contract terms. Lancashire County Council (23 017 858)
Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint from Mrs X about Miss Ys transition to a new care home, and the lack of contact from her social worker. There is not a good reason for the delay in bringing the matter to the Ombudsman. London Borough of Harrow (23 007 812)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council is not providing his brother with adequate transport to the day centre and enough care on weekday afternoons and evenings. He said the Council presented documents that were fraudulently signed. The Council is at fault for not properly considering the reasons Mr X provided about the unsuitability of the care package. Lancashire County Council (23 009 539)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly assess her care needs and to put the right support in place for her. We do not find the Council at fault. Medway Council (23 010 348)
Summary: Mr F complained the Council had refused to adapt his property and failed to provide sufficient respite care. We found no fault. Gloucestershire County Council (23 012 229)
Summary: Miss X complains on behalf of her sister, Miss Y, that the Council incorrectly charged for residential care between December 2022 and March 2023. Miss X says the Council has also failed to confirm how charges have been calculated. Miss X says this has caused her distress and confusion about the amount she has had to pay. We find fault with the Council for not providing information about the charges it intended to make to Miss Y sooner. The Council has agreed to pay a financial remedy and carry out service improvements. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (23 017 292)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr B and Mr Cs complaint about the Council carrying out a welfare visit to them without enough notice. This is because there is nothing further we could add to the previous investigation by the Council and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Lancashire County Council (23 017 395)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xs complaint about the Council's decision to refuse her request to be a paid carer for her relative, through direct payments. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Plymouth City Council (23 012 245)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about incidents in MrAs supported accommodation. An investigation would not be able to reach meaningful findings about Mr As concerns and an assessment found he no longer needs the level of support the placement provides. Change, Grow, Live (23 017 685)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a community substance misuse service. This is because the actions complained about do not relate to the provision of adult social care. London Borough of Hackney (22 013 758)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils decision not to install a walk-in bath. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to justify investigating. |
