A weekly update on adult social care complaint decisions

Summary: Mr C and Mrs C complain about the safeguarding action taken against them and the failure of the Council to safeguard Ms D from financial abuse. There is no fault in the Council’s decision to start safeguarding proceedings. However it should have communicated its decision making more clearly to Mr C and Mrs C. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr C and Mrs C and make service improvements.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to deal properly with the charges for her father’s care, including failing to take account of the fact he had dementia and his family could not access his money until after he died. The Council failed to deal properly with the charges for her father’s care. This resulted in it charging his estate legal costs and interest, despite having no policies for doing so. It also put Ms X to significant time and trouble in pursing the complaint. The Council needs to apologise and refund money to her father’s estate. It also needs to improve its working practices.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how best to meet someone’s adult social care needs. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council has reached its decisions. The Council has decided the care package based on proper reviews and professional assessments. Even though the complainant disagrees with the Council, the Ombudsman could not achieve a different outcome.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the care provider restricted her visiting hours to her mother-in-law. Based on current evidence the complaint will not be upheld. The care provider was entitled to limit the times for Mrs X’s visits.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council’s commissioned care provider did not provide good care and treatment for her husband. The Council’s safeguarding investigation showed the care home had implemented all necessary measures to manage Mr X’s health. The Council has now offered to waive the contribution as there was some poor communication by the care provider which caused distress to Mrs X.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a social worker’s handling of her mother’s care and support. This is because the complaint is outside our jurisdiction as the matters have been party to court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about lack of support from the Council’s adult social services department. Any fault has not caused an injustice to Miss X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about restricted visiting to a relative in a care home. It is unlikely we would add to the Council’s investigation or achieve a significantly different outcome that would justify us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Care Provider gave her relative, Mr Y’s belongings to a person who was not his next of kin, after his death. It is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about her late mother Mrs Y being assaulted in a care home commissioned by the Council, and the Council not allowing Mrs Y to live with her. Investigation by us could not add to the one already conducted nor result in a different outcome. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcomes she seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the outcome of the occupational therapy assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

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.

Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her parents, Mr and Mrs Y, that the Care Provider overcharged for care services, and provided a poor standard of care just before the care package ended. We have found fault with the actions of the Care Provider as it did not tell Mrs X about changes to the cost of her parents care package, meaning they were charged more. We also found fault with the actions of the Care Provider after carers were told not to assist Mr X. The Care Provider agreed to apologise, pay back the difference in care charges Mr and Mrs Y paid and carry out a service improvement.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to provide clear information about charges for his late father’s care, did not properly investigate instances of overcharging and its response to his complaint was significantly delayed. We found there was fault in the information provided. We also found the investigation was not sufficient. We found the complaint response was late and insufficiently detailed. We recommended an apology, a further payment and actions to address the charging concerns Mr X raised.

Summary: Ms X complained about the care Revitalise Respite Holidays (the Care Provider) provided to her daughter, Ms Y. Ms X is unhappy about how care workers treated Ms Y’s tightly coiled hair when it was in braids. The Care Provider was at fault for poor record keeping, a flawed investigation into Ms X’s concerns and for not telling her when Ms Y no longer had her braids. This caused Ms X uncertainty, frustration and distress and meant Ms Y’s hair was damaged. To remedy the injustice to Ms X and Ms Y, the Care Provider will apologise to Ms X and pay her £250.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council pursued him and his brother, Mr Y, for several years for a debt which the Council had previously agreed to write off. The Council was at fault. It had pursued Mr X for a debt it had previously agreed to cancel. The Council has already apologised. It has agreed to also pay Mr X £100 to acknowledge the distress and frustration this caused.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with Mr Y’s emergency care needs. The Council was at fault for failing to complete a mental capacity assessment and poor communication. This caused Mr Y to be without care for part of a day and Mr X distress and uncertainty. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment and remind staff of the need to carry out mental capacity assessments.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that his father can return home and about the outcome of his father’s financial assessment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council disposing of her father’s pots and pans in error. This is because it is a complaint about negligence which is a legal matter for the courts to consider and decide. We cannot decide a negligence claim or award compensation in the way Ms X seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to provide Mr Y’s care. We could not achieve a meaningful outcome given Mr Y’s family’s clearly stated intention to begin court proceedings about the matter. Any investigation by us would prejudice those proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X complaint about the closure of her son’s care home and the way the care provider handled this process. This is because there is another body better placed to consider the complaint.

Summary: A care provider complained that the Council had failed to make payments due in respect of care and support it had delivered. There was fault by the Council. It failed to make payments on time and failed to resolve matters when the care provider complained to it. The Council has made improvements to its processes to stop this from recurring. The Council should resolve the outstanding invoices and make an interest payment to the care provider.

Summary: A care home complained the Council was not paying care fees as it should. It said it had continued to provide care to its resident but had not been paid for this over a significant time. Based on evidence we find the Council is at fault and has caused an injustice. We have recommended the Council pay all outstanding fees and apologise.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of domiciliary care. The Council has refunded the cost of Mrs Y’s care and apologised to her daughter, Mrs X. Further investigation by us is unlikely to achieve anything more meaningful.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of care provided in a care home. This is because any injustice is insufficient to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint, about the Council withdrawing funding for care Mr Y without notice. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failing to respond to a telephone message and failing to provide emergency adult social care support. The Council’s initial two-day delay did not cause a significant enough injustice to justify an investigation. It is unlikely the delay affected the outcome that a suitable available placement could not be found. We would not add to the Council’s investigation or achieve a different outcome.

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to make the disabled adaptations Ms X needs in her home. The Council’s decision making was not in line with the law and guidance and it wrongly insisted Ms X must have all the works to her property it thought she needed. As a result, Ms X has spent over a year without access to a downstairs toilet. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise, progress works to Ms X’s home and make payments to her. The Council will also act to improve its services.

Summary: The Council has already accepted fault for delay and poor communication in its handling of Mr X’s application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. The Council’s actions in response to Mr X’s complaint are a suitable remedy for the injustice caused. We have not, therefore, made any recommendations.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to make his mother’s residential care placement permanent because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to decline her blue badge application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charges for adult social care while in hospital. It is standard practice to continue to pay to keep your room in a care home available for you to return to. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to properly consider her complaints about the quality of domiciliary care provided to her late relative, Ms Y, in 2023 to early 2024. We will not investigate. This is because there is no evidence of fault with the Council’s response as it was not responsible for the care provision.

Summary: Ms Y complained the Council wrongly decided her late mother, Mrs X, deprived herself of assets to reduce her care fees. The Council made this decision in line with relevant law and guidance without fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council not providing her with enough care hours and about the Council’s refusal to allow her food expenses to be considered disability related expenditure. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a care home being unable to find and return her late mother’s clothing. This is mainly because we could not add to the previous investigation carried out by the care home. Miss X could reasonably take court action if she wants compensation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a financial assessment for adult social care charges. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and investigation would not achieve a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in dealing with his late father Mr Y’s care fees and it not always contacting him directly about the fees. There is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks from his complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council proposed an unsuitable care placement for her adult son, Mr Y, which put him at risk of homelessness and caused her distress and financial loss. There is insufficient evidence of fault and we could not achieve what Ms X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her blue badge application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed processing the complainant’s application for a blue badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

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.