| 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. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (23 010 463)
Summary: We uphold Mr Xâs complaint about his brother, Mr Yâs, care and treatment. There was a short break in Mr Yâs medication management. We also found Mr X was not informed about one of Mr Yâs Mental Health Act assessments. However, we have not found a significant injustice arising from these actions. There was fault with the Trust and the Councilâs complaint handling, but sufficient steps have already been taken to address this. Lincolnshire County Council (23 012 160)
Summary: There is no evidence that the Council ignored Ms Xâs correspondence although the volume of contacts was difficult to manage. The care plan was produced in a timely manner which took account of some previous complaints that care plans had been rushed. Ms X successfully appealed the number of hours allocated. London Borough of Wandsworth (23 012 555)
Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his aunt, Miss Yâs finances. We found fault in the Councilâs failure to send a deputyship referral. We also found fault with the Councilâs communication about financial information and record keeping. This caused Miss Yâs family frustration and uncertainty. The Council will apologise for this and make service improvements. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (24 001 321)
Summary: There is evidence that consideration was given to Mrs Xâs eligibility for CHC funding while she was in hospital and subsequently. The first four weeks of her residential placement were funded by the NHS but afterwards she was responsible for funding her own care. Leeds City Council (24 001 390)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council had started to charge him for transport services although he believed he was eligible for s117 aftercare and should not pay charges. The Council has provided evidence he was not eligible for free aftercare. Following an investigation into Mr Xâs complaint about the unreliability of the transport service, and his decision to arrange alternative provision, the Council has now waived all charges. The complaint will not be investigated further as there is no outstanding injustice. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 001 464)
Summary: Mr X complained about the way a Council-funded care home assessed his motherâs (Mrs X) dependency levels. We have found fault with the Council (as the responsible body) for not ensuring the dependency scores reflected Mrs Xâs circumstances. This caused Mr X to pay higher top-up fees and caused avoidable distress. We have recommended the Council apologise and pay a financial remedy. Cornwall Council (24 002 678)
Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council has reached its decision about the disability related expenditure allowance for Mr X or explained the situation to Mr and Mrs A. London Borough of Enfield (24 003 200)
Summary: Mr X complained about the Councilâs delay in considering his request for his mother (Yâs) residential care home fees to be paid through a Deferred Payment Agreement (DPA). He also complained of the Councilâs poor communication in relation to this. The Council was at fault because it took 10 months to issue the DPA contract. The Council should make a payment to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty this caused. However, there is no fault in how the Council communicated with Mr X regarding the DPA. South Gloucestershire Council (24 003 492)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly calculated how much his wife, Mrs X, should pay towards her care fees and delayed issuing him a refund after it later decided she did not need to pay full costs. The Council was at fault for failing to act on a letter Mr X sent to it. This caused him frustration and uncertainty The Council also delayed issuing a later refund to Mr X, which caused him frustration and meant he was unable to earn interest on the sum. To remedy Mr Xâs injustice, the Council will apologise and pay him interest on the refunded sum. London Borough of Newham (24 006 067)
Summary: Ms C complains the Council has failed to renew her Blue Badge application. The Council is at fault for delay, and failing to provide proper reasons for rejecting Ms Câs review. This has caused Ms C uncertainty about whether the Council has properly considered her review request and her time and trouble in escalating her complaint. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms C, and make service improvements. London Borough of Enfield (24 007 368)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about a refusal to provide support for her relative, Mr Y, to move to independent living. The Council has since offered Mr Y a care act needs assessment. It is unlikely an investigation would achieve anything more. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (24 008 205)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about changes to a personâs adult social care personal budget. The Council has correctly made its decisions based on an assessment of needs. There is no reason to expect the Council to backdate changes to a time before they were requested. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an Ombudsman investigation. Somerset Council (24 009 591)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in completing a disabled facilities grant adaptation. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. Hampshire County Council (24 010 555)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr Xâs complaint the Council shared incorrect property ownership details. This is because there is no good reason why Mr X cannot take the matter to court. Hampshire County Council (24 011 697)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision not to issue her with a blue badge. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Councilâs decision-making process when determining her application to warrant us investigating. Cambridgeshire County Council (24 012 265)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Councilâs adult social care and housing involvement with her son. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councilâs decision not to accept her complaint without her sonâs consent. West Sussex County Council (23 016 430)
Summary: Ms D complained the Council delayed completing the financial assessment for her mother, Ms X, and failed to explain how much her care would cost. She said had Ms X known the cost of the care package; she would not have accepted it. This has caused her emotional and financial distress. The Council is at fault for failing to provide clear written information about the charging process and delay in the financial assessment process. Cornwall Council (23 018 367)
Summary: Mr X complained about the Councilâs failure to meet his care and support needs since 2020 and mismanagement of his direct payments since they were first made in 2016. This led to a large debt that Mr X cannot afford to repay and caused a significant decline in his mental health. We found the Council to be at fault. It failed to monitor the direct payment and address the surplus in his account. To remedy the injustice to Mr X, the Council has agreed to apologise, reduce the debt, and take action to improve its service. Runnymede Borough Council (23 018 743)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed the progress of a Disabled Facilities Grant for work needed for the benefit of her son. The scheme was not completed within the maximum timeframes set out in government guidance causing significant distress to the family. There is evidence of periods of inaction and delay which is fault. A suitable remedy is agreed. Southampton City Council (24 000 074)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to arrange a package of care for him when he returned home in December 2023 and unreasonably increased the charges for his care. The Council failed to give Mr X copies of his assessment and care and support plan in 2023. It failed to provide timely information about the cost of and charges for his care. It also failed to take account of the fact it had been told Mr Xâs stay in a care home would be for two weeks. These failings caused avoidable distress and prevented Mr X from making informed decisions about his care. The Council needs to apologise and make a symbolic payment for the distress. It also needs to improve its working practices. London Borough of Haringey (24 001 421)
Summary: Ms X complains the about the way the Council dealt with her request for a Disabled Facilities Grant assessment to carry out adaptations at her property for her daughter causing distress and uncertainty. We found there was service failure by the Council due to the delay in carrying out an Occupational Therapy assessment. We have recommended a suitable remedy for the injustice caused in this case so are completing our investigation. Hartlepool Borough Council (24 002 613)
Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with the financial assessment of his family member, Mrs Y. Mr X said this caused him and his family distress. We did not find fault with the Councilâs actions. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (24 010 452)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about how the Council considered her adult childrenâs disabled related expenditure because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (23 020 036)
Summary: Mr F complained on behalf of his son about delay by the Council in considering his application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. We found fault which caused distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to Mr F and his son to remedy this. Welford Healthcare MC Ltd (24 003 048)
Summary: There was fault by the Care provider. The Care provider gave the wrong information to a resident and then did not deduct Funded Nursing Contributions from fees which it said it would. Refunding the amount of the Funded Nursing Contributionâs remedies the injustice. Yourlife Management Services Limited (24 007 352)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider allegedly failing to notify Mrs Yâs energy provider when she moved into her property. We cannot investigate matters that do not involve, or are not connected to, the provision of adult social care. We therefore have no power to investigate the complaint. Sheffield City Council (24 011 905)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs refusal to carry out additional work to fix issues, he said were caused by building works the Council completed under a Disabled Facilities Grant. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome he wants as only the courts can decide on liability for damage to property. Leicestershire County Council (24 013 208)
Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the care home where Mr Xâs late father was placed. There is no good reason for the delay which would justify us investigating now. Leeds City Council (23 006 763)
Summary: A care home, acting on behalf of the Council, failed to properly assess the risks from another resident who later assaulted Mrs Y, causing life changing injuries and significant distress to her and her family. There was also delay and fault in the Councilâs safeguarding investigation. To remedy the injustice caused the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment and service improvements. Lancashire County Council (23 017 389)
Summary: Mrs X made some serious complaints about neglect during her late motherâs eight week stay at the Councilâs commissioned care provider, the sands care home, before she died. She said the Council failed to complete adequate safeguarding investigations. We find the Council was at fault. This caused significant distress to Mrs X. To address this injustice caused by fault, the Council has agreed to make several recommendations. Cornwall Council (23 020 576)
Summary: Mr C complains the Council delayed in sending a bill for his late brotherâs residential care, and for failing to pay back his costs. The Council is at fault for a 12 month delay in completing a financial assessment but there is no fault in how it considered Mr Câs expenses. To remedy the shock, time and trouble Mr C had in receiving a large bill the Council has agreed to apologise and make service improvements. London Borough of Merton (23 020 972)
Summary: There was delay by the Council in reviewing Ms Yâs care and support plan causing avoidable uncertainty. There was delay in complaint handling and a failure to provide a response, causing avoidable distress and time and trouble. The Council will make a payment, apologise, make a decision on funding and review procedures to minimise the risk of delay in future. Newbury Manor Limited (24 000 243)
Summary: Mrs X complains about the care provided to her deceased mother Mrs Y at Newbury Manor Nursing Home (the Care Provider). We find fault with the Care Provider for failing to follow Mrs Yâs drink chart, poor communication with Mrs X, failing to keep the family updated, and poor service to the family when Mrs Y died. We have agreed remedies with the Care Provider for the injustice caused. North Lincolnshire Council (24 000 255)
Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council calculated what she should pay towards her care. There was no fault in the way the Council reached its decision about which of her purchases were disability-related expenditure and which were normal household expenses. London Borough of Lambeth (24 001 840)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about @. Derbyshire County Council (24 003 369)
Summary: Ms C complains the Council failed to properly advise her of residential care charges. The Council has accepted fault and agreed to apologise and waive an outstanding charge. Lancashire County Council (24 003 421)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the way the Council responded to her safeguarding concerns about her relative. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code. We are unlikely to find evidence of fault to warrant investigation. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (24 006 472)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs handling of arrangements for Ms Vâs care and support because: the Court of Protection either supervises or should consider the arrangements; the Council has offered a suitable remedy for some shortfall in service and explained its decision on charges for Ms V's care and support; and we will not investigate the handling of correspondence for its own sake. The matter does not therefore warrant us investigating. Nottinghamshire County Council (24 010 339)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs A and Mrs Bâs complaint about the Councilâs assessment of their cousinâs (Mrs D) needs before it decided she could return home. That is because we cannot achieve the outcomes they seek. Hampshire County Council (24 011 142)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay completing an adult social care needs assessment. The Council has a queue of cases waiting, which it has triaged and prioritised. It has explained this to the complainant and apologised for the impact of the delay which is due to demand on its service. This is a service failure, but it is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would reach a different outcome to the actions the Council has already taken. Essex County Council (24 012 823)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about parking provision at assessment centres for Blue Badges. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice. Devon County Council (23 007 738)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council has wrongly reduced his care package based on inaccurate information and without due regard to his disability. He complains this is affecting his health and wellbeing. We found there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council re-assessed Mr Xâs care needs and reduced his care plan. However, the delays in responding to Mr Yâs complaints is fault. West Sussex County Council (24 001 520)
Summary: Mr B says the Council wrongly stopped the person who had managed his direct payment for many years from doing so, failed to explain its decision, moved him to a Council managed budget without consent and refused to allow someone to attend his review. There is no evidence of fault in the Councilâs decision to stop the person managing Mr Bâs direct payments or in its decision to move him to a managed budget. The Council delayed making those decisions and failed to ask Mr B for his views on who to include in the review meeting. An apology, payment and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (24 003 905)
Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to take adequate action when she raised concerns about her late motherâs health and living conditions despite having knowledge of her history of mental health problems and hoarding behaviours. We found no grounds to criticise the Councilâs actions. However, it was at fault in that it delayed in responding to Mrs Xâs complaint. The Council has provided a satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused by this. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (24 007 058)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Council initially refusing his blue badge application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the claimed fault has not caused any significant injustice. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (24 009 418)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâ complaint about the Councilâs incorrect advice about the cost of her mother, Mrs Yâs care. The Council has apologised, offered £500 to remedy the injustice caused and taken steps to prevent recurrence of the fault. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Trinity Homecare (Worcester Park) (24 010 226)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how an introductory care agency dealt with concerns about a care worker it supplied. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Norfolk County Council (24 010 456)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about a lack of information about the cost of her motherâs care because the Council has offered a remedy for the uncertainty caused and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Wakefield City Council (24 011 036)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charging for adult social care. Although it is worrying for the complainant, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an Ombudsman investigation. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (24 012 313)
Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about Mrs Yâs care and charges. There is not a good reason for the delay in the matter being brought to the Ombudsman. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaint handling in isolation when we are not considering the substantive matter. |
