| 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. Staffordshire County Council (23 011 353)
Summary: There is fault by the Council. It took too long to do a financial assessment. It cannot show that it made sure Mrs D understood that her mother-in-law would have to contribute to the care home charges, as well as the family pay a third party top up. It is likely that this impacted on the choice of home and led to distress when the Council sent an unexpected bill. Dorset Council (23 012 712)
Summary: There is no evidence the Council failed to consider all relevant facts when Mrs X had to move out of her previous care home. The complaint is not upheld. Redcar & Cleveland Council (23 017 245)
Summary: The Council acknowledged some failings in the assessment of Mrs Y care needs and made recommendations to address this before the complaint came to this office. Any further investigation by this office could achieve no more. Durham County Council (23 017 519)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils removal of the complainants family member from their care. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Councils decision-making, so we cannot question its decisions. Only the courts can make a decision in the circumstances. Cheshire East Council (23 018 594)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council disallowing the complainants mother to leave her care own against her wishes. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise our discretion. We cannot investigate the complainants other concerns about alleged defamatory statements made against him during legal proceedings. This is because we have no legal jurisdiction to investigate what happens in a court of law. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (23 017 540)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about the outcome of an adults care needs assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (23 017 675)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the amount of time it took the Council to complete Mrs Bs carers assessment or the communication issues she had with staff about the assessment. This is because we could not achieve anything worthwhile by investigating. West Sussex County Council (23 018 091)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xs complaint about the Councils decision to remove her support for cleaning and laundry following a care reassessment. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused by the likely fault. Gloucestershire County Council (23 010 792)
Summary: Mrs X complained her mother, Mrs T, did not receive proper care at a care home run by The Orders of St John Care Trust which was arranged and paid for by the Council. Mrs X said the care provider did not properly respond to her complaint about the matter and gave confusing accounts. We found the care provider gave conflicting information which caused Mrs X distress. It has already provided an appropriate remedy. Hampshire County Council (23 011 177)
Summary: The Council acknowledges it failed to provide the appropriate service for Mr and Mrs Xs son B and offers to reimburse Mr and Mrs X for the additional expenditure they incurred paying for private providers in the interim. The Council also failed for a long time to communicate properly with Mr and Mrs X. The Council will also now offer an additional amount to recognise the frustration caused by its delay and lack of appropriate contact. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (23 013 968)
Summary: There was a delay in completing a financial assessment which caused avoidable confusion, uncertainty and the shock of a large first bill. The Council has already reduced the bill and apologised, which is a partial remedy. It will offer a repayment plan and ensure there are enough staff to complete financial assessments without delay. Colleycare Limited (23 017 517)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Care Provider responded when Ms X raised concerns on two occasions. Investigation by the Ombudsman would not result in a different outcome, as the Care Provider has already addressed the issues sufficiently and there is insufficient evidence its actions caused a significant injustice. London Borough of Enfield (23 002 241)
Summary: Mrs X said she asked the Council to assess her needs and offer her an advocate since November 2020 and the Council failed to do so. We have not found evidence of fault. The Council has now offered Mrs X an assessment of her needs with the assistance of an advocate. Gloucestershire County Council (23 007 215)
Summary: Mrs B complained on behalf of her son, Mr C, about poor communications by the Council. These were when Mr Cs supported living placement ended and then around his personal budget on moving to another placement. We upheld the complaint, finding some fault by the Council in respect of its communications on both matters. This caused injustice to Mrs B and Mr C as distress, with unnecessary uncertainty and frustration. The Council offered to remedy this injustice in a way that we considered would provide for a fair outcome to the complaint, with details set out at the end of this statement. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 008 046)
Summary: Ms X complains Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (NUTCC) failed to provide enough support for her late mother after she went to live with Ms X in March 2020. She also complains North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (NTMBC) failed to respond to her request for support in meeting her mothers needs when her mother wanted to move back to her own home. NUTCC accepts it should have taken responsibility for meeting Mrs Ys needs while she was staying with her daughter. NTMBC accepts it delayed in taking action in 2021 and for the confusion it caused and has apologised. NUTCC also delayed in making a referral for a moving and handling assessment in 2021. It should apologise and make a symbolic payment to Ms X for the distress it has caused. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (23 008 593)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council unfairly reduced Mrs Ys care hours, leaving her health and wellbeing at risk. The Ombudsman intends to find fault with the Council for failing to carry out a review of Mrs Ys care and for how it communicated with Mr X about her care. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to review Mrs Ys care and tell Mr X of the change in care. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council for how it initially assessed Mrs Ys care needs or arranged her care. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy for the distress caused. JK Healthcare Limited (23 010 163)
Summary: Ms X complains about the care provided to Mr Y at a care home. We have discontinued our investigation as it is not proportionate to investigate the complaint any further. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (23 010 636)
Summary: Ms X complains Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (NUTCC) failed to provide enough support for her late mother after she went to live with Ms X in March 2020. She also complains North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (NTMBC) failed to respond to her request for support in meeting her mothers needs when her mother wanted to move back to her own home. NUTCC accepts it should have taken responsibility for meeting Mrs Ys needs while she was staying with her daughter. NTMBC accepts it delayed in taking action in 2021 and for the confusion it caused and has apologised. NUTCC also delayed in making a referral for a moving and handling assessment in 2021. It should apologise and make a symbolic payment to Ms X for the distress it has caused. London Borough of Ealing (23 010 991)
Summary: Ms X complains the Council has overcharged her late father for the care he received between May and August 2022. On the balance of probabilities, the Council has overcharged Ms Xs father for his care. It needs to apologise and reduce to charges to one call a day. It also needs to improve its working practices to prevent similar problems from happening again. London Borough of Camden (23 018 037)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged fault by the Council in providing the complainant with direct payments to fund her care and support. This is because the Council needs to be able to carry out appropriate checks of the complainants circumstances which she is declining to allow to take place. There is insufficient evidence of fault in respect of the Councils response to why the checks are necessary to warrant our involvement. London Borough of Islington (23 018 219)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils decision to refuse a blue badge. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Suffolk County Council (23 018 296)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a care provider supporting Mr B with adult social care on behalf of the Council. Mr B says care workers stole from him, damaged his property, and will not give him information about allegations of harassment by him. There are other bodies better placed to consider these issues, they are the police, an insurance company, and the information commissioners office. North Yorkshire County Council (22 013 524)
Summary: Mrs X complains about the provision of care provided to her daughter Y, during various periods between 2019-2022. Mrs Xs also complains the Council did not complete a safeguarding. We have concluded our investigation having made a finding of fault. During the period, there were occasions when care was not provided by Care Provider A, resulting in Mrs X and the family having to provide care to Y. The Council has agreed to our recommendations. Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (23 009 086)
Summary: Mr P complained the Council failed to take his mother, MrsRs, finances into account when completing a financial assessment for his father, Mr R. He also complained the Councils complaint handling has been poor. We have found the Council at fault for not considering Mr Rs continuing property costs and for the delay in providing Mr P with the outcome of his appeal. London Borough of Hillingdon (23 010 329)
Summary: Miss Y complains about the Councils actions in relation to a package of home care it commissioned in 2022. The Council upheld some parts of the complaint and Miss Y has received a remedy which we consider to be appropriate. We do not find fault in the other parts of Miss Ys complaint for the reasons explained in this statement. Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (23 011 659)
Summary: Mrs X complains, on behalf of her father, Mr Y, Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited mishandled the pre-admission process and failed to ask relevant questions before her father moved into in the home. She says the Care Provider failed to engage with her or social services to complete a re-assessment. Mrs X also complained the Care Provider took a long time to respond to the complaint and provided inaccurate information. Mrs X says the complaint procedure was not completed in accordance with the policy. Mrs X feels both she and her father have been caused distress. We have found fault with the Care Providers complaint handling and recommend it pay a small financial remedy. West Northamptonshire Council (23 012 869)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils decision not to arrange transport for Mr Xs child to attend specialist provision. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Councils actions. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (23 013 265)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to allow him his Minimum Income Guarantee by not considering his full Disability Related Expenses when calculating his non-residential care costs. We did not find fault with the Council. London Borough of Barnet (23 017 077)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about payment toward adult social care. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council completed its financial assessment to justify investigation. London Borough of Islington (23 017 163)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about inadequate domiciliary care. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not achieve a more meaningful outcome as the Council has now agreed to refund Mrs Ys care charges. It has also provided explanations and apologies, and created an action plan with the care provider. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (23 018 118)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about delay in the Council agreeing to fund the adaptations his mother needed. He also complains there has been a delay in the works being completed. This because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, one element of the complaint is premature as Mr X has not made the complaint to the Council. Sunderland City Council (23 018 142)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council gave incorrect advice about Carers Allowance. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome. Gloucester City Council (23 018 172)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint about the Councils handling of a disabled facilities grant application for her child. She says the Council has been vague about what is covered by the grant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Staffordshire County Council (23 018 269)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Bs complaint about the Councils assessment of his finances and Disability Related Expenditure. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an ombudsman investigation. Surrey County Council (23 018 376)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful Blue Badge application. This is because the Council will accept an early new application from the complainant. Sunderland City Council (23 018 490)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X complaint about the Council not taking direct debit payments for her late parents Mr and Mrs Ys care alarm system for a year. The Councils apology to Miss X is the remedy and outcome we would have sought from an investigation. We could not add to the Councils investigation and there is no different outcome our investigating would achieve. Hampshire County Council (23 002 477)
Summary: Mr F complained about avoidable delays in arranging to discharge his daughter, Miss D, from hospital to the community placement from December 2022 to August 2023. We found fault by the ICB for having inadequate governance or guidance about using Specialised Supported Housing. This fault caused problems with communication and has left uncertainty about whether the ICB could have planned and approved a bespoke solution for Miss D sooner. This, in turn, caused her and her father frustration and distress. The ICB agreed to provide Miss D and Mr F with apologies and small financial remedies, and to take steps to prevent similar problems happening in future. We did not find fault in the wider actions of the ICB and the Council. London Borough of Lambeth (23 015 915)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils actions regarding its decision to move Ms B or its delay in providing Ms Bs representatives with a response to the complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an ombudsman investigation. The Council has now responded and further investigation by us could achieve no more. London Borough of Bexley (23 011 898)
London Borough of Bexley (23 011 898) Lincolnshire County Council (23 015 351)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about comments made by the Councils social worker in a statement. Ms X also complains the social worker failed to complete an appropriate care assessment for her daughter, which resulted in her daughters care and support hours being reduced. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, we have previously considered Ms Xs complaints and we will not revisit the matter. |
