| 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. Milton Keynes Council (22 012 303)
Summary: Mr B complained about the Councils emergency decision to stop services for his son and the resulting gap in services while it found an alternative service provider. The Ombudsman has not found fault in the way the Council made the decisions, but there was some delay in the Council giving notice and moving Mr C to a different provider in the months leading up to the decision. London Borough of Croydon (23 002 824)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to put in place respite service for her child, Y, when they transitioned from childrens to adult social services. The Council was at fault. It failed to properly consider whether there was a need for a respite service for Ms X and Y. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her a symbolic amount of 250 for the distress and uncertainty the matter caused her. It will also review with staff the importance of following up the request for a respite service and offering carers an assessment of needs. Dorset Council (23 003 242)
Summary: Ms C complains about the Councils assessment for residential care charges, and enquiries it made about a potential deprivation of income. I find no fault in the way the Council decided and acted in determining a deprivation of income or in the Councils assessment of charge. Bupa Care Homes (GL) Limited (23 005 880)
Summary: Mr Y says the care provider failed to ensure a sensor mat was in place, failed to explain why the mat had been removed, failed to provide adequate care to Mrs X and failed to manage her medication properly. There is no evidence the care provider removed the sensor mat but it delayed considering whether to put one in place. The care provider failed to supervise provision of medication to Mrs X properly on occasion and failed to consistently apply eardrops. An apology, payment to Mr Y and training for care staff is satisfactory remedy. London Borough of Newham (23 006 761)
Summary: MrsX complained about the Councils decision to refuse her Freedom Pass application. We find fault with the process the Council followed when assessing MrsXs application, but we find the Council has already taken steps to remedy the injustice caused. London Borough of Lewisham (23 010 081)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xs complaint about the care home failing to provide adequate care to her mother and about poor standards of cleanliness of her mothers room. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes. Sheffield City Council (23 011 740)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about the Councils handling of his mothers care and support. He says the Council harassed the family to send his mother into a care home and misled them into thinking it was just for respite care. He also complains the Council failed to consider his mothers wishes and that the care home was inadequate. Riverside Care Complex (23 011 849)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Providers alleged failure to properly care for Mr X. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to lead to a worthwhile outcome for him. Blackpool Borough Council (23 011 879)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council commissioned care home provided inadequate care and support to her late mother, Mrs Y. The Council was at fault for the care homes poor care planning and risk assessments and for its failure to properly monitor Mrs Ys food and fluid intake. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty this caused her and pay her 500 in recognition of that injustice. It has also agreed to ensure the care home has carried out appropriate training. Staffordshire County Council (23 012 000)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council refused to reimburse a taxi fare. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. North East Derbyshire District Council (23 012 429)
Summary: The Councils failure to tell its tenants they can apply for a Disabled Facilities Grant if refused an adaptation under its separate policy was fault. The Council has already identified appropriate action to remedy the injustice caused and improve its services. We have therefore completed our investigation. Birmingham City Council (23 012 593)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. This is because the main person affected by any poor care has died, so we can achieve no remedy for them. The complainant wants to see the relevant health and social care records, the Information Commissioners Office would be better placed to decide that issue. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would add to the complaint responses already given or achieve a different outcome. Milton Keynes Council (23 013 702)
Summary: There was fault by the Council. It failed to properly assess Mr Xs housing needs and failed to make sure that the accommodation it moved him to was suitable. It took too long to assess his care needs and did not progress with any support planning to meet these. The Council failed to respond to his complaint and closed this when it should not have done. The Councils failings had a serious impact on Mr Xs mental health, and his ability to continue with medical treatment. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice. Hertfordshire County Council (23 008 805)
Summary: We will not investigate MrXs complaint. He has already appealed the decision to detain him under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act to the First Tier Tribunal (Mental Health). Lancashire County Council (23 010 562)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council As Occupational Therapy assessment because there is not enough evidence of fault. Kent County Council (23 011 157)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about the Councils decision to file an application to the Court of Protection which led to interim restrictions being placed on the family regarding contact with his son. This is because an investigation would not lead to different findings or outcomes. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (23 011 345)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. London Borough of Lewisham (23 011 596)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about the Councils decision to decline his blue badge application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with the way the Council made its decision. London Borough of Wandsworth (23 012 414)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to allow Mr B to speak to someone he wants to speak to. This is because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault with the Councils actions to warrant an ombudsman investigation. North Yorkshire Council (23 001 469)
Summary: Mrs A complains about a Council and Trust in relation to her sister, Mrs Bs discharge from hospital and her subsequent care at home. The Ombudsmen did not find fault with the discharge, or the care provided. However, they did find fault with the Council charging Mrs B for her care and the Council has agreed to cancel its bill for care. London Borough of Brent (23 006 795)
Summary: We uphold this complaint. There was delay allocating Ms Y a new social worker. There was further delay in arranging a visit to complete a social care assessment after Ms Y had declined a visit because of ill health. This caused avoidable distress and frustration. The Council will apologise, make a payment of 150 and offer a few dates to meet with Ms Y to complete the assessment. London Borough of Southwark (23 012 508)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about missing valuables. There is not enough evidence to prove fault by the Council, and theft is a matter for the police and insurers to investigate. London Borough of Haringey (23 002 840)
Summary: We uphold one of Mrs Xs complaints. The Council failed to review her care and support plan having promised to do so. We do not uphold a complaint about the charge for her care because the Councils financial assessment was in line with charging regulations. We did not investigate the rest of Ms Xs complaints. London Borough of Hounslow (23 004 932)
Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council handled an Occupational Therapy assessment for her brother, Mr Y. The Council was at fault for failing to properly consider Mr Ys best interests, which caused him an injustice. It was not at fault in how it handled the Occupational Therapy assessment. The Council will consider whether it needs to take action to protect Mr Ys best interests. Isle of Wight Council (23 006 033)
Summary: Ms X complained that following a needs assessment the Council has refused to meet her eligible needs for care and support. The Council has failed to show how it is satisfied Ms Xs eligible needs for care and support are being met. It has agreed to apologise to Ms X for the frustration and uncertainty caused and review her needs assessment and support plan. North Yorkshire Council (23 006 372)
Summary: The Council wrongly charged Mr Y for a period of care following his discharge from hospital into residential respite care for further assessment of his long-term care needs. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (23 006 411)
Summary: Mr X complained about unprofessional and inappropriate conduct by Council officers. We ended our investigation into Mr Xs complaint. We would likely not be able to say any fault on the part of the Council caused the injustice Mr X claimed and an investigation by the Ombudsman would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome. Trinity Care at Home Ltd (23 008 250)
Summary: We have ended this investigation. Mrs Z complained about the level of care provided to her parents, Mr and Mrs X. The Care Provider upheld Mrs Zs complaint and offered to reimburse the care fees for the relevant period. That was in line with our Guidance on remedies and so further investigation of this complaint would not have lead to a different outcome. Westmorland and Furness Council (23 009 716)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a confidential clinical conversation being held in a public place. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would add to the response Miss A has already received. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (23 010 677)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the alleged misuse of medication. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Councils actions. Staffordshire County Council (23 012 156)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about the Councils decision, in early 2019, that a third party top-up payment would apply to the nursing home placement she chose for her mother. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now almost 5 years later. Essex County Council (23 012 381)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils adult social care charges because it is late. Shropshire Council (22 013 828)
Summary: Miss E complains about the Councils delay in finding her a provider to deliver care and support. Also a delay in putting any interim provision in place, unsuitable interim provision when it was provided, and poor communications. The Ombudsman upholds the complaint because of delay and poor communication. This caused Miss E some distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to our recommendation of an apology and symbolic payment as a remedy. Cornwall Council (22 015 364)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care because it is unlikely we will add to the Care Providers investigation or reach a different outcome. There is a differing version of events and the person affected has died, so we cannot clarify matters or achieve any remedy for them. Cambridgeshire County Council (23 001 375)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council miscalculated his sons, Mr Ss, Disability Related Expenditure (DRE). The Council accepted it made a mistake and credited the amount. Mr X says the Councils assessment is not accurate and the Council still owes Mr S some money. The Ombudsman has found the total amount repaid reflects the Councils offer and the amount owed has reduced to zero. The Council is not at fault. Surrey County Council (23 005 853)
Summary: Mr X complained about the Councils failure to keep under review the best interest decision it made about his mothers care in 2022. The Council was at fault. It was also at fault for not giving him proper information about paying for the costs of care. It will apologise and pay him 1,000 to remedy the considerable stress and worry caused when it later said it may not fund his mothers care package, and his avoidable time and trouble pursuing the matter. It will also give guidance to relevant staff. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (23 007 241)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to protect her father, Mr X, who suffered from dementia, from abuse and neglect. We discontinue our investigation. That is because the police are better placed to investigate, and we do not wish to prejudice their investigation. Southampton City Council (23 012 005)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint the Council ended her care support because there is not enough evidence of fault. |
