| 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. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (23 006 503)
Summary: We investigated a complaint about the care provided to Mrs Ds late mother, Mrs E. We found fault with Bessingby Hall Care Home. It provided contradictory information in a meeting, did not keep accurate records, did not seek help from outside agencies and served notice on Mrs E without considering the impact. We recommended and the Care Home agreed to apologise to Mrs D, make service improvements and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice to Mrs D. We found no fault with the actions of the Council. Bessingby Hall (23 006 503a)
Summary: We investigated a complaint about the care provided to Mrs Ds late mother, Mrs E. We found fault with Bessingby Hall Care Home. It provided contradictory information in a meeting, did not keep accurate records, did not seek help from outside agencies and served notice on Mrs E without considering the impact. We recommended and the Care Home agreed to apologise to Mrs D, make service improvements and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice to Mrs D. We found no fault with the actions of the Council. Surrey County Council (23 009 264)
Summary: Mr C complained the Council's occupational therapy service delayed in responding to his requests for a reassessment and initially produced a report which did not adequately describe his needs. Mr C says he has lived in an unsuitable property for longer than necessary which has had a harmful impact on his health. We have found fault by the Council in the time taken to complete a reassessment but consider the agreed action of an apology and symbolic payment provides a suitable remedy. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (23 009 718)
Summary: Mr Y, on behalf of his father Mr X, complained the Council failed to notice a decline in Mr Xs health that resulted in an emergency admission to hospital causing distress. there is no evidence that fault by the Council was the reason for the hospital admission. London Borough of Hackney (23 009 939)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the decision to detain a patient under the Mental Health Act, because of concerns they were refusing treatment for their physical health. This is because there was a right to appeal the assessment outcome through a tribunal and it would have been reasonable to use this. Cambridgeshire County Council (23 011 212)
Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council dealt with safeguarding concerns about MrsY. We do not find fault with the actions of the Council. London Borough of Merton (23 013 351)
Summary: We uphold the complaint. The Council failed to offer a care home placement which met Ms Ys needs, failed to revise her care and support plan or offer an appropriate personal budget. It also failed to offer a direct payment to be managed by her family. This caused a financial loss, avoidable distress and confusion. The Council will apologise, make payments to reimburse and take action described in this statement. Trafford Council (23 014 843)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint about the care provided to her mother, Ms Y. This is because an investigation by the Ombudsmen would be unlikely to identify fault by the organisations involved in some aspects of Ms Ys care. With regards to other parts of the Ms Ys care, an investigation by the Ombudsmen would be unlikely to add anything to the investigations already carried out by the organisations Miss X is complaining about. Northumberland County Council (23 015 350)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide enough support for her under s117 of the Mental Health Act. We will not investigate the complaint because it is late and we have not found a good reason to put that aside and investigate it now. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (23 016 973)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Freedom Pass (disability based). This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Southend-on-Sea City Council (23 018 571)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. The disputed debt due from the estate would be best decided by a court. Suffolk County Council (23 019 226)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a delay in carrying out Ms Xs care needs assessment and arranging an advocate. The Council has apologised, arranged an advocate, and carried out a care assessment. Further investigation by us would be unlikely to add to this or lead to a different outcome. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (23 019 937)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care fees for Mr Xs father. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion. Making Space (23 020 064)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about poor record keeping on the Care Providers part. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to result in a worthwhile outcome. Blackpool Borough Council (23 020 101)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Bs complaint about the Councils actions regarding her mothers, Ms Cs, care and support. This is because the Councils actions have not caused a significant enough injustice to warrant an ombudsman investigation. Little Brocklesby House Ltd (24 000 002)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint alleging care failings in a residential care home. That is because it is a late complaint. London Borough of Enfield (24 000 137)
Summary: Mrs Y complained about the way the Council decided she was not entitled to an extra bedroom. Mrs Y says sharing a bedroom will have a negative impact on her health. The Council was at fault for not assessing Mrs Ys care needs after being asked to. It was also at fault as its Housing and Adult Social Care teams both told her the other was responsible for assessing her needs. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise to Mrs Y and carry out an assessment of her care needs. Following this, the Council agreed to make a new decision on whether Mrs Y was entitled to an extra bedroom. Highgate Care Services Ltd (24 000 467)
Summary: We investigated a complaint about the care provided to Mrs Ds late mother, Mrs E. We found fault with Bessingby Hall Care Home. It provided contradictory information in a meeting, did not keep accurate records, did not seek help from outside agencies and served notice on Mrs E without considering the impact. We recommended and the Care Home agreed to apologise to Mrs D, make service improvements and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice to Mrs D. We found no fault with the actions of the Council. Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (23 017 620)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about the actions of Mrs Ys Care Provider in 2022 as her complaint is late. London Borough of Lewisham (23 018 463)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Hertfordshire County Council (23 019 341)
Summary: We have decided not to investigate Mrs Xs complaint about adult social care services for her father, Mr Y. This is because the Council has upheld the complaint and agreed to remedy the injustice caused. London Borough of Hounslow (23 019 882)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council. Derbyshire County Council (23 020 260)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils decision to restrict contact between Mr X and his partner. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Councils actions. Halton Borough Council (23 010 013)
Summary: We do not uphold complaints about poor information about Ms Xs relatives discharge from hospital or about poor information on charging. The Council explained in its social care assessment why Mr Y would not benefit from rehabilitation and so there is no fault in arranging respite care in a care home. There was a delay in responding to the complaint which was fault causing frustration. The Council will apologise. Essex County Council (23 012 146)
Summary: There is no evidence of fault on the part of the Council in the way it arranged the late Mr Xs placement and carried out assessments of his capacity to make his own decisions about his finances. Salford City Council (23 012 455)
Summary: Mr X complained about the outcome of an assessment the Council carried out to decide what adaptations to make to his home for his Disabled child, B. The Council was at fault for delay in arranging the assessment. The delay caused Mr X avoidable frustration, for which the Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment. It will also consider what steps it needs to take to reduce the wait time for an assessment. There was no fault in the assessment itself or the Councils conclusions from it. Royal Borough of Greenwich (23 017 099)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the minutes of a safeguarding conference. This is because we could not add to the Councils complaints investigation. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (23 002 530)
Summary: We investigated a complaint about the care provided to Mrs As late brother, Mr B. We found fault with the Integrated Care Board who did not respond to Mrs As complaints in a timely manner, made a derogatory comment about her and interpreted her words rather than seeking clarification. We recommended and the ICB agreed to apologise to Mrs A to remedy the injustice. We found no fault with the actions of the Council, Park Hills Care Home and the Trust. Bupa Care Homes (GL) Limited (23 005 619)
Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of a family member, Miss Y, about the quality of care she received at Harts House nursing home. The care provider was at fault for delay in contacting the doctor and poor record keeping. The care provider has already apologised to Mr X. It will apologise to Miss Y and pay her 300 and Mr Y 100 to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the faults. It has already put service improvements in place. Norfolk County Council (23 013 080)
Summary: The complaint is about the way the Councils adult social care and finance teams dealt with Mr Ys case when he moved into a care home after being in hospital. Provisionally, the Council acted without fault and in line with the Mental Capacity Act, charging rules, guidance and our Principles of Good Administrative Practice when dealing with Mr Ys case. So we do not uphold the complaint. Staffordshire County Council (23 018 763)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care in a residential care home. The complainant alleges neglect, which would be more appropriately investigated by the relevant safeguarding authority or by a court. The person using the service has died so we can achieve no personal remedy for any fault. The Care Quality Commission has inspected and made service improvements. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further. Prestige Care (HM) Limited (23 019 150)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about the Care Provider. This is because it does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. London Borough of Harrow (23 019 683)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to invite Ms X to apply for a Freedom Pass (disability based). This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice. Shropshire Council (23 021 213)
Summary: We will not investigate the Councils responses to Mr Xs complaint about delays in completing his carers assessment. That is because it is a late complaint and there are no good reasons for us to investigate. Macc Care (Boldmere) Ltd (23 004 006)
Summary: Mrs X complained the care provider failed to provide adequate care and support to her late mother Mrs Y. The care provider was at fault for poor record keeping relating to Mrs Ys meals and dental care, for failing to follow up attempts to take a urine test and for significant delay in responding to Mrs Xs complaint. The care provider should apologise, make a symbolic payment to Mrs X, and provide evidence of the action it has taken to improve its service. Essex County Council (23 007 583)
Summary: The Council delayed in explaining to Mr and Mrs X the requirement for a mental capacity assessment for their son D. The Council then agreed to proceed without an assessment due to the familys concerns. It also failed to respond promptly to that aspect of their complaint. The Council agrees to acknowledge its failings here and pay Mrs X a sum which recognises the additional distress and anxiety its delay caused. London Borough of Waltham Forest (23 008 465)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed carrying out a social care needs assessment, wrongly decided he does not have any social care needs and has failed to respond to safeguarding concerns. The Council was at fault for the delay in assessing Mr Xs needs. It has already apologised for this which was an appropriate remedy. There is no evidence of fault in the way it assessed his needs or responded to safeguarding referrals it received. Kent County Council (23 010 994)
Summary: Miss X complains the Council has not provided her mother, Mrs Y, with the care set out in her care plan. Miss X says the Council failed to adjust the care plan or the charges made once they pointed out Mrs Y was receiving less than her specified hours. I have found the Council at fault for failing to reduce Mrs Ys care package in June 2022. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs Y and Miss X, backdates the charges, makes a symbolic payment and service improvements to remedy the injustice caused. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 013 947)
Summary: Mrs X has complained about the Councils handling of direct payments for her son, Mr Y. I have discontinued my investigation into Mrs Xs complaint because the Council has now resolved the issue and no worthwhile outcome can be achieved by our investigation. Lancashire County Council (23 017 068)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils response to Mrs Xs concerns about Occupational Therapy assistance. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault. Kent County Council (23 018 722)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a missing item from a residential care home. This is because it is unlikely we could add to the Councils investigation which could not identify how and when the item went missing. It would be more suitable for the police or insurance company to consider the complaint about the missing item, as either theft or a claim to replace the lost item. City of York Council (23 019 220)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils decision not to allow Mrs X to return to temporary accommodation. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Councils actions. London Borough of Harrow (23 019 416)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council. Encore Care Homes (23 009 367)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an increase in care home fees. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. Trafford Council (23 009 627)
Summary: The Council failed to properly consider medical information when assessing Mr Xs application for a blue badge. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (23 017 661)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about meeting adult social care needs. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council has assessed how best to meet the persons care needs. The person disagrees with the decision and wants a different provision, but the Ombudsman cannot question or criticise the decision when there is not fault in the decision-making process. Trafford Council (23 018 281)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding. There is not enough evidence of fault causing significant injustice. We cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants for the Council to confirm there was no finding of abuse or neglect, because the safeguarding investigation is continuing. London Borough of Southwark (23 002 906)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Bs complaint about a missed care visit to Mr C, and the delay in the Council holding a safeguarding review meeting and providing the minutes of the meeting to him. This is because there is nothing further we could add to the previous investigation by the Council and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Surrey County Council (23 006 631)
Summary: Mr C complained about the Councils handling of his care and support, record keeping and how it communicated with him since Summer 2021. He said as a result he experienced distress and did not receive the care and support he needed. We found some fault by the Council, however had the fault not occurred, the outcome was likely to have been the same. Its apology was therefore enough to remedy the injustice it caused Mr C. |
