| 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. Cornwall Council (23 012 033)
Summary: Mr D complains the Council failed to provide him with social care and housing support. The Council failed to properly assess Mr Dâs needs and offer support to help him meet his housing need. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to make Mr D a symbolic payment, make procedural improvements and provide staff training. RochCare (UK) Ltd (23 013 533)
Summary: The care provider cannot evidence it provided the care which Mr A had arranged for ten days for Mrs X. Mrs X was disorientated and suffering from an infection when Mr A returned from holiday. There was also a delay in investigating and responding to his complaint. The care provider has agreed to waive the fees in recognition of the poor standard of care to Mrs X and the anxiety caused to Mr A in consequence. Shipston House Ltd (23 014 178)
Summary: there is no evidence that the care provider attempted to improve the late Mrs Xâs interaction with other residents or to increase social stimulation. The care provider also acknowledged to Mr A that the response time to the call bell was poor. On one occasion another resident was able to enter Mrs Xâs room unnoticed while she was in bed and sat on her legs; Mrs X had to summon help herself. The care provider should review its practices in terms of residentsâ activities and interactions; reconsider the way in which it protects residents within the home and offer a sum to Mr A and Mrs B in recognition of the distress caused by the shortcomings identified here. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (23 016 812)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the actions of a social worker. She says the social worker inappropriately shared personal information about her with a third party. She also complains the Council did not complete her care assessment appropriately. This is because it is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint. ADL Plc (24 000 644)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Providerâs decision to charge backdated fees to Miss Y. I am satisfied with the action the Care Provider has taken to remedy the impact of any fault in its actions, as it waived £10,000 in care fees. Investigation by the Ombudsman would not achieve a better outcome. Worcestershire County Council (24 001 900)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint that the Council wrongly invoiced him for over £3,000 in missed contributions towards care costs. The Council has reissued the invoice showing Mr X does not owe it any money. Any injustice is not significant enough justify our involvement. Furthermore, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by investigating. Worcestershire County Council (24 002 721)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint. This is because the Council has already taken suitable action to remedy the complaint and any remaining unremedied personal injustice is not serious enough to warrant a further investigation by this office. London Borough of Bromley (24 004 548)
Summary: The Council took too long to notify Mrs B that her sonâs Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan would cease. It did not properly arrange his transition to adult social care in accordance with the law and guidance. The Council failed to maintain the EHC Plan while Mrs Bâs appeal against the decision was outstanding. It took too long to assess his social care needs and to arrange care. The Council caused significant distress, uncertainty and frustration to Mrs B and her son. Mrs Bâs son missed out on the educational provision set out in the EHC Plan. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice it caused. K and S Solutions Ltd (24 005 757)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a Care Provider allegedly not paying rent. This is because the actions complained about do not relate to the provision of adult social care. London Borough of Merton (23 015 408)
Summary: There is no evidence the late Mrs X was charged incorrect contributions towards the cost of her care. The Council has already apologised for the timing of its letter requesting outstanding contributions after her death. Manchester City Council (23 016 077)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to find supported accommodation for her son and did not provide respite breaks for her family. The Council had previously found suitable placements for Y for respite breaks in Manchester but we found the Council did not take sufficient action to find a placement for Y during 2022. Although we found fault by the Council we did not find this caused Mrs Xâs son to miss out on a placement or Mrs X to miss out on respite. This was because it seems likely Mrs X would not have accepted a placement in Manchester for Y. London Borough of Lambeth (23 017 873)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council provided adult social care. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. London Borough of Hounslow (23 019 699)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision to refuse his blue badge application. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Dorset Council (24 000 384)
Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about quality of care and charges for care. There is not a good reason for the delay in the complaint being brought to the Council and then the Ombudsman. Elysium Healthcare Ltd (24 002 227)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about visiting in a care home because we have no powers to investigate care arranged by the NHS. Lancashire County Council (24 002 567)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider disposing of a deceased residentâs belongings. This is because the Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (24 003 157)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failures in communication for an adultâs social care and funding. The Council has completed a thorough investigation and reached sound conclusions. It is unlikely the Ombudsman could add to that or reach a different outcome. The Council has apologised to the complainant for confusion and distress caused by its failures in communication, and spoken with relevant staff to prevent future problems. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (24 003 376)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the cost of his care and the Councilâs failure to share information with the Department of Work and Pensions. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement and the Council has exercised discretion to waive the care costs. London Borough of Barnet (24 003 604)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the care his late father Mr Y received at a care home and the Councilâs decision to cremate Mr Y. Investigation would not add to previous safeguarding and complaint investigations, lead to a different outcome, nor achieve a worthwhile outcome for Mr X. There is not enough evidence of Council fault regarding Mr Yâs cremation to warrant an investigation. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (22 017 137)
Summary: Ms Y complained about failings during her fatherâs discharge planning, and delays in the repatriation of her mother. We have found fault by the Council for failings in discharge planning. We have also found fault by Bradford Trust and Chesterfield Trust for failings in the repatriation process. These faults led to avoidable expenditure and avoidable stress. We have asked the organisations to apologise, reimburse money the family would not have otherwise paid, make payments to acknowledge the avoidable stress, and take steps to prevent recurrences. Nottingham City Council (23 015 348)
Summary: The Council took too long to decide on Ms Xâs application for disabled adaptations to her Council tenancy. The Council failed to include Ms X in its consideration of the possible options, wrongly refused some works because it decided others were infeasible, and included irrelevant factors in its decision making. The Council has agreed to apologise, start the works to provide a step-lift, discuss other adaptations options with Ms X, make a new decision, and make a payment to Ms X. It should also act to improve its services. Peterborough City Council (23 015 951)
Summary: Mrs X complains the works the Council funded with a disabled facilities grant did not meet her familyâs needs, and they had to live in the property for several months while remedial works were carried out. The work carried out was defective and it took too long to put it right. This caused significant distress to Mrs X. The Council needs to apologise and make a symbolic payment to her. Derbyshire County Council (23 016 516)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide a daycare centre placement for his disabled daughter. He also complained the Council failed to respond to his requests for a placement and funding. Mr X says his daughter has missed out on social interaction and stimulation offered by the daycare centre. We found fault by the Council regarding its response to Mr X, but no fault regarding the daycare placement. The Council has agreed to provide an apology to Mr X to address the injustice identified. London Borough of Croydon (23 018 510)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council stopped both Mr Yâs social care funding and Staying Put funding. Mr X says this stop in funding has undermined Mr Yâs welfare and the stability of his placement. On the evidence seen, we found fault with the Council delaying completion of a suitable care assessment and financial assessment for Mr Y. The Council agreed to backdate Mr Yâs direct payments to 3 January 2024. The Council also agreed to apologise to Mr Y and pay him £400 for the inconvenience cause. We also found fault with the Council failing to complete satisfactory long-term planning for Mr Yâs transition from Staying Put funding. The Council agreed to complete the Shared Lives process for Mr Y. The Council has offered to extend the Staying Put funding to 31 March 2024 and backdate the Shared Lives funding to 1 April 2024; we consider this a suitable offer to address the injustice caused by the Councilâs fault. The Council also agreed to apologise to Mr X and pays him £300 for the frustration and distress caused. London Borough of Havering (23 020 738)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the details the Council included about him in a safeguarding referral it made. We could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. Warrington Council (24 000 542)
Summary: Ms X complains about flaws in hospital discharge, communication and complaint handling by an integrated discharge team working for Warrington & Halton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Warrington Council. We have decided not to investigate this complaint as it does not meet the tests set out in our Assessment Code. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (24 002 820)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs application of a property disregard when conducting a financial assessment for the cost of residential care. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision to justify the Ombudsman investigating. Suffolk County Council (23 005 445)
Summary: We investigated a complaint about the care and support provided to Mr Oâs late brother Mr K by a Council and NHS Trust. We found fault by both organisations. The Council took too long to allocate Mr K a social worker and too long to respond to Mr Oâs complaints. The Trust took too long to act on concerns about Mr Kâs fitness to drive or to arrange an assessment of his mental capacity. The communication between the Council and Trust was also poor at times. These failings caused Mr O and Mr K avoidable distress and frustration. The organisations have agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy, and take actions to improve their services. Oxfordshire County Council (23 015 048)
Summary: We will not investigate a complaint about a Council charging for care after a hospital discharge. This is because we have not seen enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. It has also provided a suitable remedy for a delay in cancelling the care package and we would be unlikely to achieve more by investigating. Essex County Council (23 018 738)
Summary: Ms B says the Council failed to properly consider her hidden disability when deciding a blue badge application. There was fault by the Council, but it has already remedied this, and it will consider a new application. London Borough of Southwark (24 002 238)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council withdrawing therapy support. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council decided to end the service to justify an Ombudsman investigation. Oxfordshire County Council (24 002 592)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X complaint about the Councilâs decision to reduce her care and support hours. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the potential faults have not caused any significant injustice. Lancashire County Council (23 011 466)
Summary: Mrs A has complained about a hospital trust and a council in relation to her mother, Mrs Bâs discharge to a care home and the fees her mother was charged. We found fault with the Council and the Trust in relation to the discharge a delay in moving Mrs B to a new home and with the Councilâs complaint handling which led to distress for Mrs A and a financial shortfall for Mrs B. The Council has agreed to remedy the matter with an apology and a financial payment. The Trust has agreed to apologise and take action to improve communication. Cambridgeshire County Council (23 015 117)
Summary: Ms D complained about the way the Council dealt with safeguarding concerns about her late father, Mr F. We have found no fault by the Council. We intend to complete our investigation and not uphold this complaint. West Sussex County Council (24 001 171)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council withdrawing adult social care support overnight. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made that decision to justify an Ombudsman investigation. The Ombudsman cannot settle the dispute, but the Court of Protection may decide the matter. Trafford Council (24 001 437)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged failure by the Council to provide accurate and timely information concerning charges for adult social care. This is because we cannot add to the Councilâs previous investigation and outcome agreed with the complainant. There is also insufficient evidence of a significant enough injustice being caused by any fault. Suffolk County Council (22 012 741)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the care and treatment provided by the Council, the Trust and the Practice. This is because further investigation by the Ombudsmen is unlikely to add to the organisationsâ own investigations. Further, we cannot achieve many of the outcomes Miss X is seeking. It would be reasonable for her to use an alternative legal remedy to seek financial redress for data breaches. |
