| 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. Blackburn with Darwen Council (23 007 966)
Summary: Mr X complained about the treatment and care provided to his late mother, Mrs Y, by the Trust, Council and Practice, after Mrs Y was diagnosed with pneumonia. We found no fault by the Trust in its decision to discharge Mrs Y, although we found fault in its lack of communication with Mr X about this. The Trust provided an appropriate apology to Mr X and has taken reasonable steps to prevent recurrence. We found fault by the Council, in that the care home did not follow up a call to the Practice. We found the care home appropriately apologised and took reasonable steps to improve services. Regarding the complaint about the Practice, we found the Practice took appropriate action to prevent recurrence of the fault it had already identified, in not making a follow up call for a telephone consultation, and has apologised to Mr X. Warmest Welcome Ltd (23 012 536)
Summary: Mrs L complained about issues with the care provided by Warmest Welcome Limited. Warmest Welcome Ltd were at fault for providing inadequate care which caused distress, uncertainty and risk of harm. Warmest Welcome Ltd have agreed to apologise to Mrs L, make a reduction to Mrs Mâs care fees invoice and take action to improve services in the future. Essex County Council (23 019 520)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a care assessment because the issues raised could reasonably have been, could be or were raised as part of legal proceedings and the court is better placed to consider the complaint. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (23 020 305)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care fees allegedly owed from an estate. The complaint is a late complaint as the complainant has known about it for more than 12 months. The Council failed to set up a deferred payment agreement, but that does not cause significant injustice. So even if it were not late, we would not investigate. If there was no fault the disputed fees would have been paid under the terms of the deferred payment agreement. London Borough of Haringey (23 021 116)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Bâs complaint about the Councilâs delay in providing him with information about access to advocacy services. This is because the Council has apologised for the oversight, explained what happened and provided Mr B with the information he requested. We could achieve no more. London Borough of Bromley (23 021 447)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a Council Officer during Miss Bâs mobility assessment. This is because an Ombudsman investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome Miss B wants. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (23 006 292)
Summary: Mr X complains about the Councilâs handling of his motherâs (Mrs Y) care and assessment since she was admitted to hospital in September 2022. The Council was at fault for the avoidable delay in assessing Mrs Yâs needs and contribution to care costs. It has already taken appropriate action to remedy the injustice caused by this delay. There was no evidence of fault in the Councilâs interactions with Mr X about choice of residential care placement or the quality of care Mrs Y received. South Gloucestershire Council (23 006 318)
Summary: There were communication failures in respect of Mr Xâs needs and a failure to understand new practices which led to a delay in moving him to a nursing home in his home area. There were also failures to communicate properly with Mr Xâs wider family. The Council agrees to offer Mr X and Ms A payments in recognition of the distress and anxiety caused. Derby City Council (23 006 497)
Summary: There was fault the Council did not fully consider Mr Xâs request to reduce the information he needed to provide it while it was monitoring his direct payments. However, this fault is one which we would describe as a service failure. Any remaining injustice the Councilâs actions caused Mr X by this service failure, has already been remedied by the Councilâs actions, through its offer of moving him to a different payment scheme. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (23 012 080)
Summary: Mrs D complained the Council delayed assigning a social worker and completing an assessment of her daughterâs care and support needs. We find the Council was at fault for its delay in assigning a social worker and completing the assessment. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs D and her daughter to address the injustice caused by fault. Manchester City Council (23 014 367)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs involvement in Mr Xâs motherâs case. There is insufficient evidence that any fault by the Council caused an injustice. Gloucestershire County Council (23 019 610)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care in a residential care home. This is because the Care Provider has accepted failings in service, apologised, and said the action it will take to improve service. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would add to that investigation or lead to a different outcome. Dorset Council (23 019 751)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs delay in assessing Miss Yâs needs to facilitate a planned move of accommodation. The Council has accepted fault and proposed a personal remedy and service improvements via its internal complaint process, and investigation by us would not achieve a more meaningful outcome. Buckinghamshire Council (23 019 953)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs refusal to pay for Mr Y to live in a care home. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the Councilâs actions to warrant an ombudsman investigation. London Borough of Lambeth (23 020 510)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care in a residential care home. This is because the Care Provider has accepted fault, apologised, waived outstanding care fees, and said what action it will take to improve service. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would lead to a different outcome. London Borough of Brent (23 020 837)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a safeguarding investigation the Council carried out from 2020 to 2022. This is because the complaint is out of time. London Borough of Hillingdon (23 010 321)
Summary: The Councilâs failure to work in a joined-up way across its repairs and adaptations teams was fault. It should not have closed Ms Yâs adaptations case when it did. The Council has agreed to apologise, write to Ms Y about her adaptations, work with the repairs service, make a payment, and act to improve its services. Cornwall Council (23 018 257)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr Xâs complaint the Council did not meet his brothers, Mr Yâs care needs. That is because the Court of Protection has considered Mr Yâs care arrangements. We have no jurisdiction to investigate matters that have formed part of court proceedings. Milton Keynes Council (23 019 285)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Bâs complaint about the Councilâs refusal to agree to fund short breaks for her and her husband. 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. Essex County Council (23 019 834)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Bâs complaint about the way the Council conducted a safeguarding investigation into injuries her mother, Mrs C, sustained in her care home. This is because we could not add to the Councilâs response or make a different finding of the kind Ms B wants. Nottinghamshire County Council (23 020 875)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council completed adult safeguarding enquiries. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Surrey County Council (23 021 247)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about data protection issues because the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider the complaint. Norfolk County Council (23 006 448)
Summary: Mr C complained the Council delayed telling his late father-in-law about the financial contribution he would need to make towards the cost of his care and about the care provided. Mr C said this led to unexpected costs which caused unnecessary upset and anxiety. We have found fault by the Council in the time taken to complete a financial assessment but consider the agreed action of an apology and symbolic payment provides a suitable remedy. Hertfordshire County Council (23 006 564)
Summary: Mrs J complained about the care and support provided to her adult grandson and herself as his carer. We found no fault. West Sussex County Council (23 011 807)
Summary: Mrs J complained the Council failed to hold a discharge planning meeting and wrongly charged her for care after she was discharged from care under the Mental Health Act 1983. The Council has accepted fault and agreed to refund the care charges, write to Mrs J to explain why she was detained and to meet with her. This remedies the injustice caused. Premier Care Homes Limited (23 016 625)
Summary: We did not uphold complaints about (1) Mr Xâs admission to a care home and about the involvement of his relative (2) his nutritional care or (3) a failure to seek medical care. Mr Xâs care was in line with relevant law and care standards. Willboag Ltd (23 020 936)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the actions of a Care Provider. This is because the actions complained of do not relate to the provision of adult social care. Prime Life Ltd (23 020 957)
Summary: We cannot investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the actions of a Care Home. This is because the actions complained of do not relate to the provision of adult social care. Derbyshire County Council (23 021 041)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. This is because the Ombudsman is unlikely to add to the Councilâs safeguarding and complaint investigations, which have achieved service improvements and an apology to the complainant. So, an Ombudsman investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. Cambridgeshire County Council (23 011 035)
Summary: Mrs D complained on behalf of her mother Mrs E that the Council had acted unreasonably in the treatment of Mrs Eâs capital in a financial assessment for her contribution to care charges. On the evidence available we have not found fault with the decision-making process, but we have found fault with the complaint-handling. We have asked the Council to pay Mrs D £200 and invite her to apply for a new financial assessment from February 2023. Devon County Council (23 012 482)
Summary: Devon County Council and another council failed to follow the continuity of care process when K moved to Devon. As a result, there was an interruption to Kâs care and support and her parents, Mr and Mrs B, incurred avoidable costs paying for K to receive some support. The councils have agreed to make payments to K and Mrs B. They have also agreed to make service improvements. Sanctuary Care Limited (23 020 806)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the actions of the Care Provider in relation to her late mother Mrs Yâs care at one of its homes. There is insufficient injustice to Ms X caused by the Care Providerâs actions to warrant us investigating, and investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome. Leicester City Council (23 021 018)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs failure to notify Mr X about a care assessment carried out several years ago. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to result in a worthwhile outcome. |
