| 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. London Borough of Hounslow (23 014 119)
Summary: Ms Z complained about the way the Council dealt with Mr Xâs finances and will. We have ended our investigation as issues around Mr Xâs will are best resolved by a solicitor, the records show Mr X did not want Ms Z involved in his finances and Mr X has died so any injustice caused to him cannot be remedied. London Borough of Merton (23 014 163)
Summary: Mrs Q complains the Council delayed referring her daughter for an Adult Social Care assessment, in the time before her 18th birthday. And when it did make the referral it did not tell them and delayed responding to her contacts. We uphold the complaint. The Council has agreed to our recommendations. London Borough of Hounslow (23 014 371)
Summary: Mrs Y complained about the way the Council supported her late relative Mr X with his finances and other affairs. The Council was not at fault for not involving Mrs Y in Mr Xâs finances or in the support it provided to Mr X for arranging a solicitor. It was at fault for delay in actioning Mr Xâs request that it support him with his finances but this did not cause a significant injustice. The Council was at fault for the delay in responding to Mrs Yâs complaint for which it has already apologised. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (23 014 909)
Summary: Mrs B complains that her sonâs care provider did not provide adequate care to her son before he was admitted to hospital and says there was poor communication from the care provider. She also says the Council did not properly investigate her complaints or communicate with her. We have found fault as there were instances of poor communication from the care provider and from the Council and this would have added to the distress the family experienced. The Council has agreed to apologise to the family and to ensure that the service improvements that had previously been agreed have been implemented. Isle of Wight Council (23 015 244)
Summary: Mr Y complains about the method used by the Council to calculate the date from which his mother, Mrs Z, would become eligible for funded social care. In our view, there is an error in the Councilâs calculations which it should review and apologise for. Brighton & Hove City Council (23 019 276)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs failure to progress with adaptations to the complainantâs home. The Council confirms it has an appointment to visit the complainant to carry out a new assessment and progress the case. We consider an investigation at this time would not lead to a different outcome. Norfolk County Council (24 003 426)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about matters relating to her direct payment. This is because the Council has offered to carry out a reassessment of Mrs Xâs needs in order to consider the issues raised further and it is reasonable to expect Mrs X to complete this process before we will consider her complaint. Kent County Council (23 014 261)
Summary: Mrs B complains the Council did not tell her she would need to inform it if she started receiving a personal independence payment when a Council social worker helped her make an application. The Council accepts it knew about the award and should not have backdated charges. The Council has offered a satisfactory remedy which involves an apology, cancelling the backdated charges, payment to Mrs B and reminder to officers. Leicestershire County Council (23 015 739)
Summary: Ms B says the Council failed to put in place sufficient support to enable her to return home from respite, delayed making those arrangements, failed to carry out mental capacity assessments properly, misled her family about what it was doing and failed to consider a complaint properly. There is no fault in the way the Council arranged the care provision at home. The Council failed to share important information with Ms B and her family, failed to properly advise her and failed to consider a complaint properly. An apology, payment to Mrs C and a reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy. London Borough of Sutton (23 018 267)
Summary: Mrs Y complained on behalf of her mother, Mrs X. Mrs Y complained about how the Council dealt with Mrs Xâs residential care charges and the Councilâs poor communication with Mrs Y about the matter. There were some faults by the Council which caused injustice to Mrs Y. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused. Pendlebury Care Homes Limited (23 020 365)
Summary: There is no evidence to show Mrs X was provided with poor care in a residential care home. Torbay Council (24 001 020)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about an adult social care needs assessment completed for her relative in 2022 and the charges for his care. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to investigate now. Bracknell Forest Council (24 003 503)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Bâs complaint about the way the Council has handled his involvement with its services. Further investigation would not add to the Councilâs response or lead to a different result. Blackpool Borough Council (23 010 331)
Summary: Mr D complained about the support provided to his daughter who lives in supported living accommodation. We found some fault in the Councilâs service provision and communications. This resulted in some avoidable distress and frustration for Mr D and his daughter. The Council has accepted these findings and at the end of this statement, we set out action it has agreed to remedy this injustice. Gloucestershire County Council (23 014 451)
Summary: There is no evidence that the Council delayed Mr Xâs move from the assessment unit unnecessarily while his family was looking for a care home. The care provider acknowledged there may have been a lack of communication about the assessment unit and some other facilities were less than ideal, for which the care provider apologised. RCH Care Homes Limited (23 014 719)
Summary: Ms X complains Park View Care Centre overcharged her aunt, Ms Y, for her care, prevented her from returning to her own home and made false allegations against Ms X. Ms Y was not overcharged for her care. However, Park View raised baseless safeguarding concerns which caused avoidable distress. It needs to apologise for that distress. Surrey County Council (23 016 703)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council overcharged Mr Y for care he received which caused her a financial loss and distress. We do not find fault with how the Council carried out its financial assessments or charged for Mr Yâs care. Gloucestershire County Council (23 020 881)
Summary: We will not investigate a complaint about how a Trust and a Council dealt with a complaint about the care provided to the complainantâs brother. This is because he did not provide consent to share his information and this was appropriately considered by the organisations during the local complaints process. Devon County Council (24 001 919)
Summary: Mr X complains about the way Devon County Council and Devon Partnership NHS Trust acted in relation to a hospital detention. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because an investigation is unlikely to find fault in the organisationsâ actions. North East Lincolnshire Council (23 007 089)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Pâs complaint. We are unlikely to find fault with the way North East Lincolnshire Council and NHS Humber and North Yorkshire Integrated Care Board decided how much to pay towards his direct payment. Birmingham City Council (23 012 868)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council has failed to provide suitable supported housing or an appropriate package of care and support to meet her son, Mr Yâs needs. The Councilâs repeated failure to ensure Mr Y received the care and support required to meet his assessed needs is fault. This fault has caused Mr Y and Miss X an injustice. Essex County Council (23 013 906)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council charged her mother, Mrs Y, for care the family had been told was free of charge. We found fault as the Council failed to properly communicate when free care ended and chargeable care began or to communicate in a timely manner when Ms X challenged the charges. This caused avoidable distress and frustration for the family. The Council has already apologised and completed an appropriate remedy which Ms X and Mrs Y accepted. Staffordshire County Council (23 017 876)
Summary: Mrs K complains the Council failed to consult her regarding her adult sonâs move to a new placement. She says she did not agree to it, and she now finds it very difficult to visit him. There was fault by the Council. It has agreed a remedy. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (23 018 262)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council billed her daughter for £20,000 in care charges for the time she spent in supported living from 2015 to 2022. Ms X says her daughter cannot manage her own finances and it failed to tell Ms X about the care charges. The Council has accepted fault for failing to complete a capacity assessment of Ms Xâs daughter or keep either Ms X or her daughter suitably informed about care charges. The Council has offered to remove £15,339.64 worth of care charges from 2019 to December 2022. This is a suitable offer to reflect the fault. The Council also agreed to apologise to Ms X for delays in confirming the care charges owed from January 2023 to June 2023 and offer a payment arrangement to repay this balance owed. Mrs B F Wake (23 017 557)
Summary: There is evidence of fault by the care home, in that it failed to keep sufficiently detailed records which resulted in a lack of clarity and subsequent uncertainty for Mr Yâs relatives. The care home also delayed in responding to Mrs Xâs complaint, for which it has already apologised. London Borough of Hounslow (24 002 881)
Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about Mr Xâs motherâs transfer to a care home in the Councilâs area and her subsequent death after contracting COVID-19. There is not a good reason for the delay in the complaint being brought to the Ombudsman. In any event, we could not achieve a different outcome. West Sussex County Council (24 003 682)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint that the Council informed her that her motherâs care would be free and then sent them an invoice for care contributions. Mrs X also complains the Council delayed in carrying out a financial assessment. The Councilâs apology for the delays is sufficient to remedy any injustice caused. Lotus Home Care Limited (23 012 928)
Summary: There were some faults by the care provider in the delivery of Mrs Xâs care. The family has been reimbursed some costs for late or short calls but in my view the care provider should go further. Some aspects of poor care caused particular distress and failed to respect Mrs Xâs dignity, and the care provider should also offer a sum which recognises that. |
