| 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. Suffolk County Council (24 001 256)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision to stop her direct payments. The Council has since re-assessed Ms Xâs needs and agreed to re-start the direct payment to meet Ms Xâs care needs. An investigation by us would be unlikely to achieve anything more. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (24 001 922)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the standard of care provided to her late mother by Company Y, a Council commissioned care provider. Company Y has investigated Miss Xâs concerns, upheld parts of her complaint, apologised and taken action to improve. We could not add to Company Yâs response or make a different finding of the kind Miss X wants. Nottinghamshire County Council (24 002 700)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the quality of the deep cleaning completed by a cleaning company. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, an investigation would not lead to any further outcomes as the Council has appropriately remedied the injustice caused by the fault accepted. Norfolk County Council (23 005 561)
Summary: Ms D complained about the care and treatment of her late father, Mr F, by Trinity Surgery and a care home commissioned by Norfolk County Council. We have not found fault by Trinity Surgery. There were some faults by the care home and Council relating to document management, care planning, communicating with Ms D and Trinity Surgery, and complaint responses. We have not upheld the other complaints about the care home and Council. We have recommended the Council apologises to Ms D. The Council accepts our recommendation, so we have completed our investigation. Helping Hands Keynsham (23 014 277)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the actions of the care provider. Based on evidence seen, we find the care provider was at fault for failing to turn up to care visits, turning up at care visits late and poor communication between teams. This caused significant distress to Mrs X. To address the injustice caused by fault the care provider has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and issue a refund. Leicestershire County Council (23 014 360)
Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of husband, Mr X that there was a delay by the Council in completing a financial assessment which caused avoidable confusion, uncertainty and backdated charges. The Council was at fault because it allowed the financial assessment to drift, leading to delay in the final outcome. It has agreed to apologise to Mrs X, make a symbolic payment and offer an affordable repayment plan for the backdated charges. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (23 016 384)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Councilâs refusal to find another home care provider to provide care for her father at home. This is because an investigation would not lead to any worthwhile or further outcomes. London Borough of Lewisham (23 016 778)
Summary: Mr B complained the Councilâs Care Act review of his care and support needs was flawed, and it wrongly ended his direct payment as a result. We found fault in the way the Council reached its decision as it failed to properly consider Mr Bâs personal circumstances and evidence available to the Council before it reached its decision. The Council will apologise to Mr B and make payment to acknowledge the distress, uncertainty and loss of care support he experienced. HC-One Limited (23 018 332)
Summary: Mr X complained about the quality of care provided to his late mother Mrs Y in a care home. We have ended our investigation as the complaint relates to events from 2020 and 2021. Mr X could have complained to us sooner and an investigation now is unlikely to achieve a worthwhile outcome. Trafford Council (23 012 439)
Summary: Dr X complains about an Approved Mental Health Professionalâs application to detain Mr Y under the Mental Health Act. There is no evidence of fault in how the Approved Mental Health Professional assessed Mr Y. But the Council is at fault as the Approved Mental Health Professional failed to properly notify Dr X of her rights as the nearest relative. This fault will have caused uncertainty to Dr X which the Council has agreed to apologise for. West Sussex County Council (23 013 322)
Summary: Mrs F complained that both Councils failed to agree adaptations to the family home needed by her husband and children. We upheld the complaint, finding both Councils acted with fault contributing to an impasse where no application for grant funding had been made. This caused distress. The Councils accepted our findings and at this statement, we set out the action they have agreed to take to remedy this injustice and improve services. Worcestershire County Council (23 013 397)
Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her late aunt, Mrs Y about the way the Council handled her care contribution fees. We have found no fault with how the Council reached its decision not to waive Mrs Yâs fees. Leicester City Council (23 015 367)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council withdrew the support provided to him without a proper assessment of his needs. I find no fault in the way the Council assessed Mr Xâs care and support needs. It acted in accordance with the law therefore I am unable to question the decisions made. Birmingham City Council (23 016 117)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs refusal of a disabled facilities grant for an adaptation to Mr Xâs property to meet the needs of his children. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached the decision to warrant our further involvement. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (23 020 380)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about how the Council responded to her request for a disabled facilities grant. The Council has already apologised for incorrect advice it provided in a telephone call. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. There is also not enough evidence of fault in the Councilâs decision Miss X is not eligible for the grant to justify our involvement. Mid Sussex District Council (24 000 715)
Summary: Mrs F complained that both Councils failed to agree adaptations to the family home needed by her husband and children. We upheld the complaint, finding both Councils acted with fault contributing to an impasse where no application for grant funding had been made. This caused distress. The Councils accepted our findings and at this statement, we set out the action they have agreed to take to remedy this injustice and improve services. Central Bedfordshire Council (24 002 346)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about a care bill the Council sent her for her motherâs care and support placement. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Wokingham Borough Council (24 002 446)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council- commissioned care provider allegedly turning off Ms Xâs freezer whilst visiting her home and causing food to spoil. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (23 015 874)
Summary: There is evidence of some fault by the Council in this complaint. There was a delay in allocating a social worker to Mrs Y and a failure to chase up a mental health referral after she went into emergency respite care. This left a level of uncertainty about the impact such intervention may have had on Mrs Yâs care. Highlands Borders Care Home Limited (23 016 405)
Summary: There is no evidence the care providerâs actions caused any injustice to Mrs A. The care provider was entitled to enforce the terms of the contract and give notice to Mrs A. London Borough of Croydon (23 016 811)
Summary: There was delay by the Council in telling a family of the cost of care for Mr X in his home. The family were made aware there would be a financial contribution towards the care costs and had previously decided they did not wish to arrange care through the Council because of this. The Council has already offered a remedy of an apology, an offer to carry out a financial reassessment and an offer of a payment plan so no further action will be taken as the injustice has been remedied before the complaint was made to the Ombudsman. Brighton & Hove City Council (23 018 541)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council did not provide support to complete a financial assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Derbyshire County Council (24 002 917)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint, regarding her late mother Mrs Y, about the actions of the carer when Mrs Y died, the differing accounts of the incident, and the Councilâs complaint responses. We cannot make a finding that the carerâs actions contributed to Mrs Yâs death. There is insufficient personal injustice to Miss X caused by the records issue to warrant investigation. We could not add to the Councilâs investigation of the matters. We do not investigate councilsâ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint. An investigation would not achieve a worthwhile outcome for Miss X. London Borough of Wandsworth (24 003 643)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about her sonâs care and support provision. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councilâs decision not to consider her complaint whilst the matter is being considered in ongoing court proceedings. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (24 003 779)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about assessing adult social care needs. The person using the service has died and so we can achieve no worthwhile outcome from an investigation. The Council accepts delays in assessing adult social care needs caused by difficulty recruiting staff. In the meantime, the Council has a system to prioritise the waiting cases, which is what the Ombudsman would expect. Hampshire County Council (23 016 242)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide costs information about the care for his mother (Mrs M) until five months after the service started, when the Council sent a large bill. I have discontinued my investigation. This is because we could not add to the Councilâs investigation, and we are unlikely to achieve a different outcome. Staffordshire County Council (23 021 214)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about how the Council handled a safeguarding alert he raised about his sisterâs appointee and the Council actions over his application to become his sisterâs deputy. We do not consider Mr X to be a suitable representative for his sister. Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (23 015 925)
Summary: Mr X complained low staffing levels meant his mother, Ms Y, received inadequate care during a two-week period at a care home run by Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited. The Care Provider was at fault for failing to have records of checking on Ms Y for several nights and for failing to alert staff of her increased need for support. This caused Mr X avoidable frustration and uncertainty for which the Care Provider will apologise. It will also provide evidence it has carried out staff training and issued reminders. Durham County Council (23 018 473)
Summary: We will not investigate the complaint about the adequacy of Council social care support provided to the complainant. This is because we have not identified any evidence of fault with the Councilâs communication with the complainant, or how it is assessed her needs for care and safeguarding referrals made on her behalf. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Surrey County Council (24 002 080)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information provided by the Council for a Continuing Healthcare assessment. That is because the complaint is late. In addition, the decision not to award funding was made by the Clinical Commissioning Group, not the Council. Therefore, it is outside our jurisdiction. Devon County Council (24 002 383)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council completed safeguarding enquiries. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Kent County Council (24 002 793)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X complaint about the Councilâs failure to collect a direct debit for her sisterâs care fees. The Council accepted fault and waived half the outstanding fees. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome. |
