| 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. Coulson & Collins Care Home Ltd (22 011 518, report)
Summary: The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman investigated a complaint about Coulson & Collins Care Home Ltd. We found the care provider did not correctly record and refund an overpayment for the complainantâs late fatherâs care, incorrectly charged an administration fee, and delayed responding to her. It means her fatherâs estate is at a financial loss and she has been caused uncertainty and distress, as well as the frustration of having to complain to us. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (23 002 561)
Summary: There is no fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Mr Xâs request for a reassessment of needs. Kent County Council (23 003 178)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. The person using the service, who is the person most affected, has died and so we can provide no remedy for any impact on them caused by fault of the Council, or care provider on its behalf. The Council has considered and responded to the complaint issues through its safeguarding, quality monitoring and complaints processes. It has apologised to the family for the impact on them and acted to improve future service. It is unlikely we could add to this or achieve anything further. London Borough of Islington (23 010 788)
Summary: Mr X complains about how the Council handled an application for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DGF) for home adaptations for his son, Y. We have concluded our investigation having not made a finding of fault. The evidence demonstrates the Council followed the correct process when assessing Mr Xâs application for a DFG. An Occupational Therapist visited Mr Xâs home to conduct an assessment on two occasions and reached a professional judgment regarding the adaptations required which were completed. It is not for our service to intervene to offer a different view, nor can we criticise decisions made properly. West Sussex County Council (23 014 091)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councilâs decision to charge her mother, Mrs Y, for her care and support, after first saying there would be nothing to pay. We did not find the Council said Mrs Y would not have to pay for her care and support. However, we found the Council was at fault for not providing clear charging information in writing at the start, and for significant delays completing a financial assessment. But we found no fault in the way the Council completed Mrs Yâs financial assessment. London Borough of Sutton (23 015 734)
Summary: Miss X complains there were failings in the way the Council carried out an assessment of Miss Yâs eligible care needs and provided her with Direct Payments to pay her carer Mr Z causing distress and financial difficulties. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. So, we have completed our investigation. North Yorkshire Council (24 000 910)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint the Council failed to provide a copy of the care assessments it completed for her mother. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Central Bedfordshire Council (24 001 129)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the care assessment the Council completed for her daughter and that the Council has refused to provide the care and support her daughter needs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Derbyshire County Council (24 001 827)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs failure to keep him informed about his motherâs health, giving the keys to his motherâs property to another council without telling him, and taking away the opportunity for him to say goodbye to his mother. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Wokingham Borough Council (24 001 963)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint that a charity is not providing her with her requested reasonable adjustments and about its easy read complaints policy. This is because the actions complained about are not the administrative function of a council. Buckinghamshire Council (24 001 972)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs assessment of a personâs adult social care needs. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council completed its assessments to justify the Ombudsman investigating. Wiltshire Council (23 014 484)
Summary: Ms X complains the Council has failed to meet all her needs for care and support. The Councilâs records containing conflicting information about how it has been meeting Ms Xâs needs. It has also failed to engage with other agencies which have contacted it on Ms Xâs behalf. The Council needs to apologise to Ms X, make a symbolic payment, reassess her needs and update her care and support plan. Warwickshire County Council (24 000 839)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial assessment for adult social care. There is not enough evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to justify the Ombudsman investigating. The Council completed the financial assessment in accordance with its policy, law, and guidance. The Council gave unclear information to the complainant, for which it has apologised. Leeds City Council (24 001 272)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a care home. That is because we could not add to the investigation completed by the Care Home, nor can we achieve the outcome the complainant wants. Dorset Council (24 002 071)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial assessment for adult social care charges, and the Councilâs decision about a deprivation of asset. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Councilâs decision-making process or reach a different outcome. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (24 002 818)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to issue a Blue Badge. This is because the Council is considering a new application and there is nothing more we could achieve at this stage. It has also recommended service improvements. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (23 005 007)
Summary: Miss X complained about the Councilâs actions when she wanted to apply for a Disabled Facilities Grant for her parents, Mr and Mrs Y. She also complained that the Council took too long to make payments when it had agreed to fund construction works. We found fault because the Council gave Miss X incorrect advice and closed Mrs Yâs case when it should not have done. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and Mrs Y, make payments to them and review some of its policies and procedures. East Sussex County Council (23 015 765)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Câs complaint about delay in calculating her fatherâs, Mr Dâs care costs, or the way the Council communicated with her. This is because further investigation by us could not add to the Councilâs responses. We are satisfied with the actions taken by the Council regarding the failings and could achieve no more. London Borough of Haringey (24 000 657)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care provided by a Care Home. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. Staffordshire County Council (24 000 658)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failures in adult social care support when Ms C left hospital. The complainant has known about the issues for more than twelve months, and there is no good reason she could not have complained to the Ombudsman sooner. Battersea Care Limited (24 001 878)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the standard of respite care and support Mrs E received. This is because further investigation could not add to the Care Providerâs response or make a different finding of the kind Mrs C wants. Claims of neglect and compensation are properly for the courts to decide and it would be reasonable for Mrs C to ask the court to consider her claim for compensation. West Berkshire Council (22 017 189)
Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council managed an application for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). She also complained the Council failed to assess or review her needs as a disabled parent to a disabled child, over at least two years. We have found the Council at fault for not properly considering the health needs of the whole household when assessing the DFG application. We have also found the Council at fault for not considering the full range of purposes for which a DFG can be awarded in its decision. We have not found the Council failed to review Mrs Xâs carer needs. We have found the Council at fault for not addressing Mrs Xâs complaint about this at the earliest opportunity. We have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused. Care UK Community Partnerships Limited (23 004 023)
Summary: We have found fault with pressure care management and record keeping by a care home. On balance we do not consider this caused harm, but it has led to uncertainty around pressure care and the speed of recovery. The Council and the care home accepted our recommendations, which included action to address the faults with record keeping and maintaining care plans, and to apologise to the complainant for the distress caused by the uncertainty. Lilian Faithfull Homes (23 005 324)
Summary: Mrs X complained about some of the care services provided to her (late) mother, Mrs Y, and about some of its dealings with the family. Mrs X also complained the Care Provider did not handle her complaint properly. We have found the actions of the Care Provider caused an injustice to Mrs Y and Mrs X. The Care Provider has already offered and completed a financial remedy for the family. To remedy the injustice caused, the Care Provider has also agreed to apologise to Mrs X and review some of its procedures. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (23 008 797)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about his late brotherâs care and treatment during April to August 2021. This is because a significant amount of time has passed since the events Mr X is complaining about occurred and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to complain to us sooner. We are also unlikely to be able to make the findings sought by Mr X about his brotherâs cause of death. Hampshire County Council (23 009 761)
Summary: We have found fault with pressure care management and record keeping by a care home. On balance we do not consider this caused harm, but it has led to uncertainty around pressure care and the speed of recovery. The Council and the care home accepted our recommendations, which included action to address the faults with record keeping and maintaining care plans, and to apologise to the complainant for the distress caused by the uncertainty. London Borough of Lambeth (23 013 429)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to follow the recommendations from a previous Ombudsman investigation. Miss X complained the Council failed to correctly update and provide support from a care plan and carers support plan. Miss X also complained the Council used a care agency without consulting with either herself or Mr Y. Miss X also complained about delays in completing a Disability Related Expenditure assessment. We found fault with the Council delaying provision of respite care and failing to consult about the care agency. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay her half the respite care costs, minus the client contribution, from 21 June 2023 to 5 February 2024. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (23 014 934)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councilâs handling of a safeguarding investigation regarding her late mother Ms Yâs care. The Council was at fault for not informing Mrs X of the outcome of the investigation and for not properly considering her concerns about Ms Yâs discharge to a care home. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X. Lilian Faithfull Homes (23 018 537)
Summary: Mrs Z, on behalf of her deceased mother Mrs X, complained the Care Provider failed to carry out a safeguarding investigation and failed to properly deal with data breaches. She says this cased her mother unnecessary anxiety and discomfort during the last few months of her life. The Care Provider has accepted fault in respect of cleaning, meal provision and that a data breach occurred. It determined the threshold for a safeguarding investigation was not met. The Care Provider has taken appropriate action in respect of the faults found in this case. Hertfordshire County Council (24 000 772)
Summary: We cannot investigate Ms Xâs complaint about matters relating to her partner, Mr X's, care in hospital and his discharge to a nursing home under the discharge to assess procedures. This is because they are not Council services. We cannot investigate Ms Xâs complaints about Mr Xâs placement at a nursing home. This is because it was funded by the NHS and not the Council. Hartlepool Borough Council (24 001 317)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Providerâs failure to seek medical intervention. There is an independent investigation ongoing which is likely to provide the outcome Mrs X seeks and it is not proportionate for us to also consider the matter at this time. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 001 812)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision to refuse her claim for damages after her pet was injured. This is because this is a complaint about negligence which is a legal matter for the courts to consider and decide. Cumberland Council (24 001 860)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the care received by his relative in a Care Home from 2020 â 2022. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complaint has been made late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate. Liverpool City Council (24 002 228)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charges for adult social care. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an Ombudsman investigation. The Council has explained how it followed the rules to calculate what Ms C must pay and has checked its position with its legal team. The Council has followed the correct process to reach its decision. Cheshire West & Chester Council (23 021 322)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr Xâs care charges because any injustice is not significant enough. Leeds City Council (24 001 946)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint that the Council gave him insufficient notice that it was introducing two monthly, instead of monthly, invoicing. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. City of York Council (23 013 454)
Summary: The complainant (Mr X) said the Council had failed to update his wifeâs (Mrs X) direct payments with the inflationary increase from April 2023. We found fault with the Councilâs lack of action as well as with the inadequate communication with Mr X and its failure to respond to his complaint. The Councilâs fault caused Mr X frustration. He spent much time contacting the Council and other organisations. The Council agreed to apologise and make symbolic payments to recognise Mr Xâs distress and his time and trouble. The Council also agreed to carry out some service improvements. London Borough of Camden (23 017 852)
Summary: We cannot investigate Ms Xâs complaint about disrepair in her home. That is because we cannot investigate the Council where it is acting as a social landlord. We will not investigate her complaint that her mother cannot safely access the garden. The Council has agreed to progress the access issues through a Disabled Facilities Grant. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. London Borough of Hillingdon (23 019 903)
Summary: Mr B has complained about the delay by a Trust, Council and Integrated Care Board in discharging him from section 117 of the Mental Health Act aftercare. Mr B said the delay led to distress, and anxiety. We will not investigate this complaint as, although there was a delay in informing Mr B of the discharge, he has received an apology and we would not add anything further by investigating the case. Salford City Council (23 009 054)
Summary: We found fault with the falls care provided to Mr X when he was resident in a care home. We also found fault with the safeguarding enquiries carried out by the local safeguarding authority. The organisations involved will apologise to Mr Xâs daughter, Ms Y, and explain what action they will take to prevent similar problems occurring for other service users. They will also pay Ms Y a financial remedy in recognition of the distress these events caused her. London Borough of Harrow (23 000 589)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how a Council communicated with Mr X and handled his complaints, which included support for a deputyship application and payment of fees for his late fatherâs care. The Council has already accepted fault and provided a suitable remedy. Investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve more. |
