| 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. Norfolk County Council (24 010 701)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered the complainantâs application for a new blue badge. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The Council awarded the blue badge following an appeal. We consider further investigation will not lead to a different outcome. London Borough of Croydon (24 001 238)
Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her son, Mr Y, the Council refused to pay for the two-to-one care Mr Y needed and had not completed a review of his care needs between March 2022 and September 2023. The Council failed to properly assess, plan and review Mr Yâs care needs and did not communicate with Mrs X. The Council will apologise to Mrs X and pay her a symbolic amount of £500 to recognise the frustration, uncertainty and distress this caused her and will remind relevant officers to keep clear, complete and contemporaneous records. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (24 008 638)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the care review completed by the Council and the decision to include information which Ms X considers was out of date, and of the Councilâs refusal to appoint her an advocate. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. London Borough of Croydon (24 008 866)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council failed to complete an adult care needs review. That is because it is late. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 009 526)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council assessed Mr Xâs need for home adaptations. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. The law says we cannot investigate his complaints about the Housing Association has maintained the property. Shropshire Council (24 010 155)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about a period of Council-commissioned domiciliary care her late mother Mrs Y received shortly before her death, and about the Councilâs complaint responses. There is insufficient personal injustice caused to Mrs X or the family by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating. An investigation by us would not add to the Councilâs investigation, achieve a different outcome, nor achieve a worthwhile outcome. We do not investigate councilsâ complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint. London Borough of Harrow (23 019 869)
Summary: Miss X complained about the care provided to her mother, Mrs Y, at the Council commissioned care home and about the care homeâs decision to evict Mrs Y. She also complained about the way the Council dealt with safeguarding concerns. The care home was at fault for inaccurate care plans, for failing to supervise Mrs Y and another resident and for using a knife to open her locked door. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to acknowledge the distress and frustration caused to Miss X. The care home also failed to provide Mrs Y with appropriate oral care. The Council has agreed to make a payment to acknowledge the discomfort this caused. There was no fault in the way the care home reached the decision to evict Mrs Y or in the way the Council responded to safeguarding concerns. Westminster City Council (23 021 336)
Summary: There is no fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Mr Xâs complaints about the domiciliary care he received from two different care agencies. Reading Borough Council (24 001 236)
Summary: Mr X complains about the Councilâs failure to complete work to his home under a disabled facilities grant. The Council was at fault for withdrawing the offer to carry out the work in two stages to minimise the disruption to Mr X. It needs to reconsider that decision. Surrey County Council (24 006 533)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding. The Council has accepted fault and will apologise and act to improve future service. We are satisfied with the Councilâs actions in response to the complaint. It is unlikely we could add to the Councilâs investigation or reach a different outcome. Cambridgeshire County Council (24 006 869)
Summary: Ms Y complains a Care Agency failed to ensure her relative received care in line with her care plan in 2023. We will not investigate. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complaint has been made late and there are no good reasons to explain the delay. Leicester City Council (24 008 036)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of social workers during a Care Act assessment. This is because there is another body better suited to look at Mr Xâs complaint about professional practice. London Borough of Croydon (24 009 375)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision not to issue a blue badge. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Cornwall Council (24 009 464)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about whether the Council is acting in Mr Câs best interests in its role as appointee for benefits. An Ombudsman investigation would not achieve a worthwhile outcome, and not achieve the outcome the complainant wants; for a family member to be appointee. The Department for Work and Pensions and the Court of Protection are better placed to consider these concerns. London Borough of Haringey (23 018 546)
Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about delay by the Council in carrying out an assessment for the transition of Mr Y from children to adult care services. The Council is at fault as it delayed in carrying out a transition assessment for Mr Y and wrongly stopped his direct payments. The Council also failed to identify it had responded to Mr and Mrs Xâs complaint when they chased for a response. The faults caused distress, uncertainty and avoidable time and trouble to Mr and Mrs X. The fault also caused injustice to Mr Y as he missed the benefit of increased support. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising and making a symbolic payment of £1000 to Mr and Mrs X and a symbolic payment of £1000 to Mr Y. Hampshire County Council (24 008 942)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care and the events leading to a death. It is unlikely we would add to investigations already completed, and we understand there will be an inquest. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would lead to a different outcome. Salford City Council (24 009 145)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care needs assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault. The Council made its decision following an assessment of the complainantâs needs, which involved the complainant and considered their views. The Ombudsman cannot question the Councilâs decision even though the complainant disagrees with it. Swindon Borough Council (23 019 908)
Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council handled Mrs Yâs care and the familyâs requests for a residential placement. He also complained about the Councilâs safeguarding actions after Mrs Y suffered injuries following a medical emergency. Mr X said this distressed Mrs Y and her family. There was fault in the way the Council did not complete appropriate assessments, delayed completing the safeguarding investigation and did not follow its complaint process. Mr X and Mrs Y were caused uncertainty and distressed by the fault identified. The Council should apologise, make a financial payment and provide guidance to its staff. North Somerset Council (24 000 175)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council has discriminated against him and failed to properly consider his care needs. He said the matter has caused him significant distress and he has had to turn down work opportunities due to embarrassment about his personal hygiene. We find the Council was at fault for a delay in completing the review. This caused significant distress to Mr X. To address this injustice caused by fault the Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment. Leeds City Council (24 001 930)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider whether to disregard his sonâs property when calculating the cost of care. Mr X says his son will not be able to afford to pay for any care costs unless his property is disregarded. We have found the Council at fault for how it made its decision. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise, re-make the decision on whether to include Mr Xâs sonâs property when calculating care costs, and carry out a service improvement. London Borough of Haringey (24 002 425)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council communicated with service users following a cyber-attack. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Liverpool City Council (24 006 618)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Council charging him a contribution for his care and support. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Worcestershire County Council (24 009 841)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint that the Council delayed in resolving her complaint about an invoice. This is because an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes. Devon County Council (24 012 552)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. London Borough of Croydon (23 001 396)
Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to assess her needs properly and took over a year to send the assessment to her. The Council accepts it took too long to send Ms X her assessment. It needs to apologise, make a symbolic payment and reassess her needs, taking account of her requests for adjustments when doing the assessment. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (23 019 207)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council and ICB failed to work together to provide him with a budget for support. We found no fault by the ICB or Council in how they worked together to provide Mr X with a budget for support. We found fault by the Council in its reference to older legislation in its Direct Payments contracts, which caused frustration to Mr X. The Council has taken action to update the contracts, and has agreed to send Mr X an updated version. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (24 003 197)
Summary: Ms X complains the Council delayed arranging transport for her father, Mr Y, to attend a day centre. She says this prevented him from having cultural, social and cognitive stimulation. We find the Council at fault which caused Mr Y and Ms X injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment and apologise to Mr Y and Ms X and take service improvement action. Completelink Limited (24 008 039)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about fee increases for privately arranged residential adult social care. This is because investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. On our ordinary reading the Care Provider has acted in line with its contract. A court would need to decide if the Care Provider has breached its contract. Norfolk County Council (24 008 449)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about how the Council has responded to his concerns about a care home. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Lancashire County Council (24 009 247)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about changes to an adult social care and support plan. The Council has completed an assessment and fully explained its decision. It is unlikely we would find fault or reach a different outcome, even though the change is upsetting for the complainant. Leicestershire County Council (24 009 261)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council incorrectly recording that Mr Xâs care had been funded by NHS continuing healthcare. It apologised to Mrs X for its error and reissued invoices for the correct amount. We could not achieve anything further. |
