| 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. North Yorkshire Council (24 001 841)
Summary: Mr W complained the Council has wrongly issued a bill for his late motherâs brief stay in a care home. He says the Council did not explain it would charge for the stay and has billed a higher sum than it paid to the care home. We found the Council at fault for not carrying out a proper financial assessment. We do not consider the Council to be at fault for issuing a bill. The Council has agreed to reissue its bill, apologise to Mr W, and review its processes to improve its service. Blackpool Borough Council (24 003 830)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about deprivation of capital. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Leicester City Council (23 018 768)
Summary: Mrs B says the Council wrongly refused to pay towards the cost of an extension as part of a disabled facilities grant application after completing an inaccurate means test. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision. The Council failed to properly explain a means test was required before any payment would be released. An apology is satisfactory remedy for that. Essex County Council (24 001 463)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Councilâs best interests decision. That is because the complaint is late, and the matters are best considered through the Court of Protection. Cheshire East Council (24 003 380)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how best to meet adult social care needs. The complainant and Council are in dispute over suitable accommodation. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Councilâs decision making to justify an investigation. Devon County Council (24 003 529)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 004 393)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss Y not being kept informed about her relativeâs welfare in the last few months of their life. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We are unlikely to find evidence of fault to warrant investigation. Staffordshire County Council (23 017 079)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council treated her motherâs, Ms Yâs, purchase of a car as a deprivation of assets when completing a financial assessment. The Council is at fault for attaching weight to the V5 certificate which it says shows legal ownership of the vehicle. London Borough of Lambeth (23 019 820)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. There is no evidence to support the Council persuaded Ms C not to allow the complainant to move in with her. Ms C had capacity to make her own decisions about her care support; she chose to live alone and to pay for care. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (24 000 311)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council is not giving her adult son, Mr Y, sufficient support to meet his needs. She says direct payments from the Council do not cover the cost of respite care and the Council will not allow her flexibility in how she spends the payments. She says she is struggling to care for Mr Y as he gets older and wants the Council to consider individual requests to spend the money. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for failing to keep adequate records and failing to complete an investigation as promised. The Council has offered to cover the shortfall in the respite care payments in September and complete a further review. We agree these are the most suitable practical remedies for the injustice and additionally recommend the Council apologises to Mrs X, makes service improvements, and pays her a financial remedy for the distress caused. Kent County Council (24 002 598)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the support provided by the Councilâs adult social care service. The Council has apologised to Mr X and acted to learn from the complaint. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. London Borough of Bexley (23 010 928)
Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to deal with safeguarding reports about Mrs B properly. It also failed â for six months â to find a new placement for the person in Mrs Bâs care home who was a risk to her, despite its best efforts. These failings contributed significantly to harm Mrs B suffered over a nine-month period. The Council has taken steps to improve its service, and it has now also agreed to make a symbolic payment to Mrs Bâs estate to recognise her injustice. Trafford Council (23 011 875)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide the care and support at home that her mother-in-law Mrs Y needed when she was discharged from hospital. There is no fault by the Council. Dorset Council (23 014 444)
Summary: We found no fault by a Council and Trust in terms of their decision to change Miss Yâs support arrangements. However, we did find fault with how they communicated those changes to Miss Y and her mother, Mrs X. The Council and Trust will apologise for this and make changes to prevent similar problems occurring in future. They will also make a symbolic payment to Miss Y and Mrs X to recognise the distress this caused them. Wokingham Borough Council (23 017 060)
Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council conducted a Care Act assessment of her needs, and how it responded to her complaints about that matter. The Council was at fault as it delayed completing an assessment and providing appropriate support for Ms X and did not keep clear and accurate records. The Council will apologise to Ms X and pay her £3,000 to recognise the injustice caused to her by the faults and improve its services to avoid similar drift and delay in the future. Shropshire Council (24 004 031)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a lack of support for carers in the Councilâs area. This is because many of the issues raised happened too long ago and I seen no good reason why they could not have been raised sooner. We could not add to the Councilâs investigation into other matters. Cornwall Council (24 005 386)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision not to pay towards the cost of an access ramp the complainant installed in his home. There is no evidence of fault in the Councilâs decision. Norfolk County Council (23 013 106)
Summary: The Councilâs decision to change Mrs Xâs care agency despite the recommendation of a senior mental health nurse about consistency of care had a detrimental effect on her stability. The Council should review the way in which it responds to changing needs and consider how it exercises discretion over care choices to avoid the risk of giving the impression it has a blanket policy. It agrees to offer a proportionate amount to Mrs X and Ms A in recognition of the considerable anxiety they suffered during this time. London Borough of Haringey (23 018 316)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council delayed dealing with a disabled facility grant. The Council delayed dealing with his application. Mr X suffered delay and avoidable distress. The Council should pay Mr X £500. | 