| 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 Ealing (24 000 008)
Summary: Mrs Y complained the Council failed to arrange suitable care for her mother, Mrs X, when she was discharged from hospital. Mrs Y said this meant she and her sister, Ms W, had to provide the care instead. The Council was at fault for delay in arranging a new care provider to help Mrs X, when the original provider did not work out. This caused Mrs Y and her sister Ms W avoidable frustration and upset, for which the Council will apologise. The Council will also identify why the delay happened and what steps it needs to take to prevent similar fault in future. Hampshire County Council (24 001 351)
Summary: Mr A complains the Council caused delays in Mrs B being discharged from hospital because it did not complete its safeguarding enquiries quickly. We will not investigate this complaint further because we found no fault with the actions of the Council. London Borough of Harrow (24 001 497)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a personal budget for a direct payment. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to investigate it now. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (24 002 949)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the cost of adult social care. The Council failed to explain why the reablement team was involved in this case and to clarify that it was not free. The Council also delayed completing its financial assessment and confirming the costs of the care. It has apologised for the upset and confusion and waived £100 from the bill. We are satisfied with the actions it has taken to acknowledge the impact of its fault. If there was no fault the full bill would be due. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (24 005 231)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs failure to provide information about care charges when he moved to supported living accommodation. The Council has already waived the care fees for the period before it provided costs information in their entirety and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (24 006 255)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the level and adequacy of support provided by the Council to the complainant in 2020 when social services became involved with his family. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise our discretion and investigate despite the passage of time. Norfolk County Council (24 008 274)
Summary: We will not investigate this safeguarding complaint. 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 by the Council. Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (22 016 488)
Summary: The complaint is about a home care provider commissioned by a council. Record keeping was poor around call timing and duration and there was a failure to discuss an informal carerâs expectations and preferences around delivering personal care. This caused avoidable distress and confusion. The Council will apologise and reduce the outstanding bill. London Borough of Islington (23 013 099)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision to refuse her a Blue Badge. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Bristol City Council (23 013 816)
Summary: There was no fault in how the Care Provider or the Council handled matters, when Miss B complained about the arrangements for her care, and that a carer had been racist, or when the Care Provider gave Miss B notice that it would stop providing her care. West Northamptonshire Council (23 014 240)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to follow its complaints procedure when dealing with his complaints about a disabled facilities grant for his parents or make reasonable adjustments for his dyslexia and autism. Mr X says he suffered avoidable stress and could not engage properly in the processes to resolve his complaint. We have found fault by the Council in some of its communication but consider the agreed action of an apology provides a suitable outcome. Suffolk County Council (23 014 802)
Summary: We found fault with the Council in the way the Council communicated with the complainant (Mr X) about the charges for his care services. We also found fault with the Council for its failure to take account of its duties under the Equality Act 2010. The Councilâs fault caused distress to Mr X, which lasted for many months. The Council has agreed to apologise, review adjustments needed by Mr X in his communication with the Council and make a symbolic payment to recognise Mr Xâs distress. The Council has also agreed some service improvements. Devon County Council (23 017 232)
Summary: Mrs X, complains the Council has not dealt properly with her adult social care. The Council is at fault because there was delay completing a needs assessment and responding to her complaint. Mrs X suffered uncertainty, time and trouble and missed care provision. The Council should apologise, pay Mrs X £200 for uncertainty and time and trouble, and £400 for missed care provision due to delays. London Borough of Enfield (23 018 111)
Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of Mrs Y and her disabled son, Mr Z, that the Councilâs care and support plan for Mr Z did not provide him or his family with sufficient support. Mr X says this has placed a strain on Mrs Y and her family. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to carry out a re-assessment of Mr Zâs care needs and a carerâs assessment for Mrs Y. West Sussex County Council (23 018 655)
Summary: The Council delayed too long in assessing Mrs Xâs finances properly. As a result, she was faced with a large and unexpected invoice. Mr A also complains the Council tried to contact him on an incorrect address. The Council agrees to apologise for the delays, offer a sum in recognition of the distress caused and agree a payment plan. MMCG (2) Limited (24 003 546)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care someone received in a care home or the information provided to their representative. This is because it does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code; there is not enough evidence of fault in the providerâs actions or of significant injustice to the person, and we could not likely resolve any dispute about what happened so the matter does not warrant us investigating. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (24 004 743)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about care charges sought by the Council from the late Mrs Yâs estate, nor its handling of and responses to her complaint. The charging complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now. We do not investigate councilsâ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issue which gave rise to the complaint. New Care Nottingham (Opco) Limited (23 016 681)
Summary: Ms G complained about the care and support provided to her late father, Mr D by the Care Provider. We found fault with the Care Providerâs record keeping and the accuracy of information it recorded in Mr Dâs care records. Some of the care Mr D received fell below the standard he should reasonably have expected. The Care Provider has agreed to our recommendation and will write to Ms G and offer to pay her £7,500 as a symbolic payment to acknowledge the overall injustice caused by the faults. The Care Provider previously apologised and acted to improve. Manchester City Council (24 000 639)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failure by an adult social care provider to contact its clientâs next of kin when the client became unwell, and after the client died. The care provider has apologised for the distress caused and has contacted all relevant clients to ensure it has contact details for their next of kin. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (24 004 304)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a care provider. We could not achieve anything meaningful by investigating the complaint, as the Care Provider has already provided satisfactory remedies and made service improvements where appropriate. Brighton & Hove City Council (23 013 280)
Summary: Ms M complained the Council failed to address her concerns about the adult care services her son, Mr S, receives. The Council is at fault for delay reviewing Mr Sâs care plan and failing to carry out a transport assessment. East Sussex County Council (23 015 944)
Summary: Miss X complained about a lack of care hours provided by the Council for her son. She said the Council has refused extra care hours and had not allocated a social worker. Miss X said this has delayed a care review being completed. We find the Council was at fault. This caused significant distress to Miss X and her son. The Council has agreed to make several recommendations to address this injustice caused by fault. London Borough of Havering (23 015 210)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to provide him and Ms Y with information about possible charges for her residential care leading to a debt causing distress. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. So, we have completed our investigation. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (23 019 863)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision there was a deprivation of assets. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Leicestershire County Council (24 003 158)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Bâs complaint. She has not provided good reasons for approaching us late. Also, Miss B has already appealed the decision to detain her under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act to the First Tier Tribunal (Mental Health). Bristol City Council (24 005 465)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decisions relating to Mrs Yâs care and the associated charges. Parts of the complaint have already been considered and decided. Other parts are late and there is not a good reason for the delay in Mr X bringing the matter to the Ombudsman. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (22 017 954)
Summary: Mr C complains about the actions of a care home. The care home was at fault in the way it restricted Mr Câs visits, in serving notice, and in how it dealt with his complaint. To put things right the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr C for the distress and uncertainty its actions caused, and make him a symbolic payment. It will also act to address the faults particularly how it records decisions and responds to complaints. The Care Provider has agreed to apologise to Mr C and provide staff training. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (23 018 947)
Summary: Ms Y complained that professionals failed to understand her motherâs personality and wrongly determined she lacked capacity. Ms Y said this led to a decision to transfer her mother to a nursing home which caused her distress. In addition, she said it led to a hospital and a nursing home placing unnecessary restrictions on her mother. We have not found fault in the way professionals considered Mrs Xâs capacity. However, we have found fault in the way a Council considered Mrs Xâs best interests before placing her in a nursing home. This caused avoidable distress and we have recommended an apology and a small financial payment. |
