| 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. Abbeyfield Society (The) (23 019 390)
Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her late sister about care provided to her at a residential care home. Mrs X complained care staff did not correctly administer her sisterâs inhalers and delayed seeking medical assistance. Mrs X says she feels this may have contributed to the deterioration in her sisterâs health. We found fault by the Care Provider. The Care Provider has agreed to apologise to Mrs X, provide a financial remedy, and make service improvements to prevent a reoccurrence of the fault identified. West Sussex County Council (23 019 435)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councilâs decision to remove transport funding from Mr Xâs care package and about its complaints handling. We found fault in the Councilâs decision making and complaint handling which caused Mrs X and her family distress and frustration. To put matters right, the Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make a symbolic payment of £500. And, after Mrs X has taken welfare benefits advice, the Council agreed to carry out a financial assessment to further consider what contribution Mr X should make towards the cost of his care package. K T M Care Ltd (24 001 626)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care provided to Miss Xâs adult son. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Care Provider. Cornwall Council (24 003 076)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about property disregard in the financial assessment for adult social care fees. This is because even though the complainant strongly disagrees with the Councilâs decision, there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to justify an investigation. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (24 005 953)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision to only fund two premium economy flight tickets and its refusal to fund any other expenses. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Queensgate Healthcare Limited (24 006 060)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Providerâs miscalculation of Mrs Yâs care charges and its subsequent contact several months later to pursue outstanding charges. The Care Provider has agreed to take suitable action to remedy the inconvenience, frustration and uncertainty the matter caused three of Mrs Y's children. Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (24 006 839)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Providerâs management of Mrs Yâs medication. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice caused by any fault in its actions, and in any event it is unlikely we could achieve a different or more meaningful outcome. Slough Borough Council (24 007 032)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged failure by the Council to pay the complainantâs invoices for care services. The issue concerns a contractual legal dispute and the complainant could reasonably take court action. Further, we will not investigate alleged fault around the Councilâs safeguarding and procurement processes due to time and insufficient evidence of fault. London Borough of Harrow (24 007 377)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision not to issue a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. London Borough of Hounslow (23 011 995)
Summary: The Council was at fault for delaying a review of Mrs Bâs support. It has agreed to apologise to her daughter to recognise her injustice. Manchester City Council (23 019 512)
Summary: Mr Xâs representative complained the Council wrongly charged him for a contribution to his residential care fees when he was entitled to free mental health aftercare. His representative also complained about how the Council calculated an interest refund payment on the amount Mr X paid. The Council has accepted fault. It has agreed to make Mr X a suitable interest refund payment and to make him and his mother a payment in recognition of the distress caused to them. South Derbyshire District Council (23 019 648)
Summary: Ms X complained about delays and poor-quality workmanship of a wet room she had installed under a Disabled Facilities Grant. The Council was at fault. Its contractor took too long installing the wet room and poor quality of works has led to ongoing problems and snags. The Council agreed to make a payment to Ms X to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused. It has also agreed to commission an independent survey of the wet room to identify and resolve any ongoing issues caused by the initial contractorâs works. Seraphim Home Care Ltd (23 021 009)
Summary: Ms X complains on behalf of her father, Mr Y, the care provider is overcharging for the time spent with Mr Y and is failing to complete all of the agreed tasks. Ms X says this has amounted to large financial losses. We have found fault in the care provider for failing to confirm how it would calculate its charges. We recommend the care provider reissue its invoices in line with the hours Ms X has recorded it is at Mr Yâs and issue an apology. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 001 644)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs response to Miss Xâs concerns that her adult daughter lacks mental capacity to manage her own finances and is not receiving appropriate support. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is no indication of fault in the Councilâs response. Cheshire West & Chester Council (24 005 393)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs refusal to refund Mrs Zâs estate the overpayments she made to her care home. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Wokingham Borough Council (24 006 168)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs Adult Social Care services involvement with his late mother, Ms Y. Part of the complaint is late, there is insufficient evidence of fault and we could not achieve the outcome Mr X wants. Durham County Council (24 006 538)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint that her husbandâs care home took 40 hours to act on a fall her husband had. This is because we are not likely to find fault with the care provider for not seeking medical advice earlier. There does appear to be fault with the care providerâs record keeping. However, the potential fault has not caused any significant injustice. Linden Care Homes Limited (24 006 614)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about medication errors in a residential care home. The resident has died so we can provide no remedy to them, and there is no ongoing risk. The Local Authority safeguarding, and the Care Quality Commission have investigated, so it unlikely we would reach a different outcome in the wider public interest. There is an impact on the relative of the resident, who is distressed. But this is not significant injustice on its own to justify an Ombudsman investigation. London Borough of Lambeth (24 000 802)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the information the Council holds on the complainant. The right to access personal data which the Council holds about the complainant under the UK General Data Protection Regulation is a more suitable route to access the information he wants to know. If the complainant remains unhappy the Information Commissionerâs Office is better placed to consider the complaint. Cornwall Council (24 001 518)
Summary: Mrs X said the Councilâs handling of Mr Xâs added care costs after he left hospital was unnecessarily time consuming, caused distress and significantly affected her finances. We found there was avoidable delay by the Council and a failure to properly process Mrs Xâs complaint about the costs. To put matters right, the Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make a symbolic payment of £1,000. The Council also agreed to remind its officers of the need to deal with complaint correspondence in a timely manner. East Sussex County Council (24 002 429)
Summary: Ms K complained about the way the Council communicated with her late auntâs family when it applied for Power of Attorney, and after her death. We found some fault in the Councilâs actions after Ms Kâs auntâs death. The Council has already offered a fitting remedy, so we do not recommend anything further. Hampshire County Council (24 006 578)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Councilâs Adultsâ Health and Care team failed to correspond with its Special Educational Needs team. This is because the alleged fault has not caused a significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation. Sunderland City Council (23 014 041)
Summary: There is no evidence the Council was at fault in the way it reached the decision about deprivation of assets, or that it harassed Mrs X as is alleged. London Borough of Lambeth (23 019 381)
Summary: Mr C complained about the information the Council gave to him about care fees when his brother Mr D moved into a care home. We have not found fault with the information provided but we consider the Council should have considered Mr Dâs capacity in relation to the financial assessment and provided copies of information to Mr C. It also delayed excessively in responding to Mr Câs complaint. The Council has offered to pay Mr C £250 which we consider is a reasonable symbolic payment in line with our guidance. The Council has also agreed to review its social care complaints procedure. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (23 021 226)
Summary: We upheld a complaint the Council failed to invite a member of Mrs Câs family to a continuing healthcare checklist assessment. This contributed to the Council failing to take account of information relevant to its assessment and resulted in delay to the NHS considering Mrs Câs eligibility for funding towards her health needs. This caused avoidable distress which the Council has agreed to remedy, detailed at the end of this statement as well as agreed service improvements. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (24 000 443)
Summary: We cannot investigate whether Mr Kâs current care plan meets his needs because this is part of court proceedings. There was no fault when the Council refused to reassess Mr Kâs care, or how it responded to his motherâs concerns about his care and finances. The Council also properly considered whether Mr Kâs mother has support needs as a carer and has explained its conclusions to her. London Borough of Haringey (23 001 938)
Summary: The Council was at fault for the time taken to complete a care assessment for Ms X and for the way it carried out this assessment. The Council was also at fault for delaying in responding to her complaint about this and for failing to carry out a carers assessment. Ms X had to wait longer than she should have done for an assessment of her care needs and she cannot be sure the Council has properly assessed her care needs. She also does not know whether she is entitled to any support as a carer as the Council did not carry out a carers assessment. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council agreed to carry out some personal remedies, including carrying out a new care assessment for Ms X and a carers assessment and making payments to her for the distress caused. The Council also agreed to carry out a service improvement. Sunderland City Council (23 010 640)
Summary: Ms C complained about the Councilâs handling of her safeguarding concerns about her parentâs care home, and the support provided by its Adult Social care team. We found no fault in Councilâs safeguarding process. The Council accepted it had failed to ensure a social worker was allocated to their cases and appropriate notes were not kept, which caused Ms C distress and uncertainty. We also found a significant delay in its complaintâs response. The Council will apologise and make payment to acknowledge the injustice Ms C experienced. Hampshire County Council (23 013 882)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not assess his needs properly, and wrongly decided he was ineligible for care and support. We found there was no fault in the Councilâs assessments of Mr Xâs care needs. However, the Council was at fault for not properly considering Mr Xâs request for a video call assessment. This caused Mr X frustration and distress. The Council agreed to apologise and reconsider his request. L Adams and J Adams (23 019 125)
Summary: Mr X complains about the care provided by Broad Oak Manor Nursing Home towards his mother, Mrs Y. Mr X says the Care Provider failed to provide a reasonable standard of care and keep his mother safe. The Ombudsman intends to find fault with the Care Provider for the handling of an incident involving Mrs Y. The Ombudsman does not intend to find fault with the rest of the care provided. The Ombudsman recommends a financial payment in recognition of distress. Liverpool City Council (24 005 259)
Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the quality of Mr Yâs domiciliary care. There is not a good reason for the delay in Ms X bringing the matter to the Ombudsman. Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council (24 005 998)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint that the Council delayed in agreeing his eligibility for a disabled facilities grant as it failed to exercise discretion in his case. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (24 006 299)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs Adult Social Care provision to Mr X because there is not enough evidence of fault. Leeds City Council (24 007 393)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Council introducing a new invoicing process for Adult Social Care services. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation and we could not achieve the outcome she would like. North Northamptonshire Council (24 009 093)
Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about a financial assessment for care. There is not a good reason for the delay in the matter being brought to the Ombudsman. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (23 006 496)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council had delayed since 2020 completing adaptation work in the bathroom for her son. Ms X said the work was done to a poor standard and remained incomplete. Ms X also complained the Councilâs communication with her was poor. There was no fault in the Councilâs actions. London Borough of Newham (23 019 061)
Summary: Ms D complained how the Council, and the care provider it commissioned, handled matters when her brotherâs bathroom required major repairs. She also complained the Council delayed carrying out a review of her brotherâs care and support plan. We find fault with how the care provider handled the repair issues. We also find the Council was at fault for its delay in carrying out a review of the care and support plan. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Leicestershire County Council (23 021 090)
Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision that Mrs X had deliberately deprived herself of assets in order to avoid care home costs. Birmingham City Council (24 004 067)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Councilâs handling of her father, Mr Yâs, adult social care case. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons why it could not have been raised with us sooner. We also could not add to the Councilâs response or reach a different outcome. Royal Borough of Greenwich (24 005 172)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about funeral arrangements. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the substantive issues complained about. Although there is fault in the complaint handling, we would not consider the injustice caused is significant enough to justify our resource to investigate. |
