| 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. London Borough of Southwark (23 016 348)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide him with a vision rehabilitation service which had a harmful impact on his independence and well-being and caused his wife avoidable distress. We have found service failure by the Council but consider the agreed action of an apology and symbolic payment provides a suitable remedy. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (23 016 738)
Summary: Mr C complains about the care provided at a care home and says the care home failed to follow the familyâs request that Mr D should not be taken to hospital. There was fault in the care that was provided, the record keeping and the communication of the care home and this has caused an injustice to Mr D and his wife. The Council has agreed to apologise, to pay a small financial remedy and to implement service improvements. Westmorland and Furness Council (24 000 167)
Summary: There is no fault in an email to Ms X putting two options to resolve a dispute between her and a relative about her motherâs finances. We have ended the investigation of other complaints for two reasons. Firstly, the Council has apologised and offered an appropriate symbolic payment to reflect Ms Xâs avoidable distress and we could achieve nothing further by investigating. Secondly, we cannot achieve the outcome Ms Xâs seeks because the Council is not responsible for managing her motherâs finances. So we would not recommend it reimburses her. Buckinghamshire Council (24 000 198)
Summary: Mrs Y complains the Council arranged a supported living placement for her daughter, Miss W, despite the placement being unaffordable for her. We find the Council failed to provide advice to Miss W about possible benefit entitlement before the placement started. This fault caused uncertainty because we do not know whether Miss W would have accepted the placement if she had been given enough information to make an informed decision. The Council has agreed to complete the remedial actions we have listed at the end of this statement. Wakefield City Council (24 005 329)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councilâs failure to hold a private care provider responsible for the poor care it delivered to her mother, Mrs Y. We have discontinued our investigation because the complaint was late and there was not a good reason for the delay in bringing the matter to the Ombudsman. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (24 007 598)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision not to provide care and support to her mother in a nursing home and about the Councilâs decision her mother had mental capacity to make decisions about her care and support. This is because the likely fault has not caused any injustice. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault. Cambridgeshire County Council (24 009 790)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging client contributions for adult social care. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Derbyshire County Council (24 010 427)
Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about how the Care Provider and the Council handled allegations made against Mr Y and Miss X. There is not a good reason for the delay in the matter being brought to the Ombudsman. Buckinghamshire Council (24 010 633)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision to decline his application for a one-off carerâs direct payment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (23 013 447)
Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to provide safe and suitable care for her grandfather Mr Y while he was in a care home causing distress. We have found fault by the Council because it failed to provide clarity to its safeguarding enquiry conclusions in Mr Yâs case. We have recommended a suitable remedy for the injustice caused in this case so have completed our investigation. West Sussex County Council (24 001 951)
Summary: Ms X complains the Council was at fault in the way it carried out a financial assessment on her mother, Mrs Y while she was in a residential care home causing distress and financial expense. We found fault by the Council as it delayed carrying out a financial assessment on Mrs Y. We have recommended a suitable remedy for the injustice caused in this case and so have completed our investigation. East Lindsey District Council (24 002 402)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councils handling of her Disabled Facilities Grant application. She also complained about poor communication. Mrs X said this distressed her family. There was fault in the way the Council delayed approving the application and miscommunication. This fault distressed and frustrated Mrs X. The Council should apologise, make a financial payment and remind staff about its duties. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (24 005 915)
Summary: Mrs Y complained the Council commissioned care home, Bamford Grange Care Home, failed to provide her late father, Mr X, with appropriate care and support. Mrs Y also complained the Council failed to properly investigate her concerns under its safeguarding procedures. The Council properly investigated Mrs Yâs safeguarding concerns. It accepted the care home delivered inadequate care to Mr X and was at fault. The Council has offered to waive Mr Xâs care fees and make a payment to recognise her distress. It has also put in place service improvements to learn from Mrs Yâs complaint. This is a suitable remedy. West Sussex County Council (24 008 365)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unexpected visit relating to adult social care. The Council was entitled to decide to visit, though would have been better to have told the complainant in advance. The complainant was not in at the time of the visit, and we do not consider there is sufficient injustice to justify an Ombudsman investigation. London Borough of Croydon (24 008 651)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about support provided to her relative, Ms Y, by the Councilâs adult social care services. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Somerset Council (24 009 743)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council communicated with Miss X relating to her daughterâs care and support needs. The Council has already investigated and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome. West Northamptonshire Council (24 010 812)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how to meet adult social care and support needs. The Council has explained the actions it needs to take to review the personâs care and support plan and to provide a carer's assessment to the complainant. An Ombudsman investigation would not achieve a different outcome. London Borough of Harrow (24 010 898)
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. Surrey County Council (24 011 279)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs handling of adult social care charges because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (24 013 564)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful Blue Badge application. This is because the Council has offered a new mobility assessment and will reassess the case. Devon County Council (24 008 518)
Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council dealt with her application for a blue badge. We find the Council failed to follow government guidance when considering the distance Ms X walked during her first assessment. The Council also failed to follow the guidance on assessing blue badge applicants who have hidden disabilities. The Council will apologise and reconsider Ms Xâs application having regard to the relevant parts of the government guidance. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (24 010 879)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. London Borough of Harrow (24 011 238)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision to refuse him a Blue Badge. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Somerset Council (23 008 535)
Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide them with care and support and has not assisted them with repairs to their privately owned property. There is no fault in the way the Council has assessed Mr Xâs care needs or responded to Mr Xâs request for repairs. Birmingham City Council (23 021 430)
Summary: The complainant (Mrs F) complained about inadequate domiciliary care given by Sevacare Sutton Coldfield, acting on behalf of the Council, to her mother (Mrs X). Although the Council accepted some fault which caused injustice to Mrs X, Mrs F and her sister (Ms G), it failed to offer remedies. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs F and Ms G, make a symbolic payment and ensure Sevacare Sutton Coldfield provides regular trainings to its staff. The Council has also agreed to review its complaint handling for the Adult Social Care complaints. We did not find fault in the remaining issues of the complaint. Trafford Council (24 007 479)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how to meet adult social care needs. There is not enough evidence of fault in the process the Council followed to decide Ms Câs capacity to decide about her care and to assess how best to meet her needs. The Ombudsman could not achieve the outcome the complainant wants, which is to say Ms C needs 24-hour care. The Court of Protection would be best placed to decide a dispute about capacity and an appropriate care plan. Devon County Council (24 010 417)
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. West Sussex County Council (23 020 341)
Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of Mr Y. He complains that the Council failed to arrange a care provider for Mrs Z to enable her to live in her own home and delayed in carrying out a care assessment. The Council was at fault as it delayed in carrying out a care needs assessment for Mrs Z and did not explore where she wanted to live when it eventually carried out the assessment. As a result, Mrs Z was prevented from returning home with a care package. The fault also caused distress and uncertainty to Mr Y which the Council has agreed to remedy by apologising and making a symbolic payment of £500 to him. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (23 020 508)
Summary: The Council identified failings in some areas of care provided to Ms X. It also acknowledged a delay in dealing with Ms Xâs complaint about this, but it failed to offer an adequate remedy for the injustice caused. Willow Tower Opco 1 Limited (24 001 104)
Summary: Mrs D complained about the oral care provided to Mrs B while she was in a care home, how medication was administered and failure to communicate with her. The care provider failed to follow its policy on oral care, failed to inform Mrs D when a tooth fell out and misled her about whether it would send the further response to her complaint. An apology, writing off some care fees, payment to Mrs D and a reminder to staff is satisfactory remedy. Suffolk County Council (24 003 067)
Summary: Mss B complained that the Council had failed to consider the psychological aspects of her condition when assessing her application for Blue Badge. We found some fault in the Councilâs actions. The Council has reconsidered the decision and we do not consider any further remedy is appropriate Oxfordshire County Council (24 008 945)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care charges. The Council assessed the person needed residential care, which they received, and which the Council assessed the person could pay for. An Ombudsman investigation would be unlikely to reach a different outcome or achieve the outcome the complainant wants of a refund of care charges. Leicester City Council (24 009 342)
Summary: We will not investigate Xâs complaint about the support their adult child received from the Council between 2019 and 2022. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate. In addition, we are unlikely to find evidence of fault and cannot achieve the outcome X wants. Westmorland and Furness Council (24 009 769)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a social worker. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Nottinghamshire County Council (24 012 688)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about removal of Mrs Xâs adult daughter from her familyâs care. These matters are the subject of court proceedings and we therefore have no jurisdiction to investigate. Leeds City Council (24 013 471)
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 Tower Hamlets (24 015 521)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs actions with respect to Miss Xâs late relative, Mr Y. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is insufficient evidence to indicate Miss X is a suitable person to raise complaints on Mr Yâs behalf given there was a registered attorney in place. Sheffield City Council (24 005 186)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to agree the disabled facilities grant Mr X requested. While it carried out two assessments that were not adequate, its third assessment was not fault as it properly considered his childâs needs. As the third assessment did not result in a better offer, the lack of thoroughness in the previous two did not cause any injustice to Mr X. Essex County Council (23 012 445)
Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of Ms Y, who has complex additional needs. Ms X complained the Council did not provide a suitable personal assistant, concerns about Ms Yâs assessments and issues contacting the budget holder. There was fault in the way the Council did not ensure Ms Y had a suitably trained support worker. There was also fault in the way the Council did not ensure a suitably trained and experience worker completed Ms Yâs assessment, did not ensure Ms Y could contact her budget holder, did not consider an advocate, did not make reasonable adjustments and poor complaint handling. Ms Y was distressed and frustrated by this fault. The Council should apologise, provide a financial payment and issue guidance to its staff. |
