| 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. Cheshire East Council (23 005 368)
Summary: Mrs K complained the Council and the Integrated Care Board (ICB) stopped paying for Miss Dâs housing costs when the property changed to supported housing. She said this resulted in Miss D depleting her savings because she had to pay rent and incurring legal charges as she had to seek specialist legal advice. We found fault in the way the Council and the ICB decided to stop paying for Miss Dâs housing costs as her accommodation should have been provided without charge in line with the terms of the Mental Health Act 1983. The legal fees she owes could have been avoided were it not for the faults. The Council and the ICB have agreed to our recommendations and will repay Miss D over £59,000 she paid for rent plus interest and pay her avoidable legal fees. They will also improve their processes and determine if others have been affected in a similar way. Leicestershire County Council (23 012 131)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council is failing to meet his sonâs, Mr Qâs, needs for care and support. The Council accepts it took too long to reassess his needs, the assessment contained inaccuracies, the draft care and support plan lacked clarity and it changed his personal budget without giving four weeksâ notice. The Council has apologised for the delay and the inaccuracies but not the lack of clarity or the lack of notice. The Council accepts the need to reassess Mr Qâs needs based on his current circumstances. The Council needs to provide a more detailed apology, acknowledging the contribution its failings have had on the poor relationship with the family. It also needs to make a symbolic payment to Mr Q for the distress caused by the lack of notice. Leicestershire County Council (23 021 492)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to meet his sonâs, Mr Pâs, needs for care and support. The Council accepts it took too long to reassess his needs, and it changed his personal budget without giving four weeksâ notice. It apologised for the delay but not the lack of notice. The Council needs to apologise for the lack of notice and make a symbolic payment to Mr X for the distress caused. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (24 003 959)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs assessment of Mr Y and a subsequent court decision relating to his contact with others. The law prevents us from considering the start of court action or what happened in court. We cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X seeks, as only the courts can make a new decision. Cambridgeshire County Council (24 004 077)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Leicestershire County Council (24 005 604)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about mental capacity assessments completed in late 2022 because the complaint is late. We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint the Council failed to help him more recently because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Leeds City Council (24 006 513)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Hertfordshire County Council (24 010 201)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the care his late father Mr Y received at a care home commissioned by the Council. Investigation would not add to previous safeguarding and complaint investigations, lead to a different outcome, nor achieve a worthwhile outcome for Mr X. North Yorkshire Council (23 013 439)
Summary: Ms X complained about the handling of her Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) application. She says the proposed adaptations to her property are not fit for purpose and do not create sufficient space for her family. Mrs X complained the Council did not consider her family holistically or take account of their social and emotional needs. The Councilâs failure to demonstrate how it took account of Ms X and her childrenâs views and needs is fault. As is the delay in completing an assessment of needs. These faults have caused Ms X an injustice. Norfolk County Council (23 016 712)
Summary: Ms B complains the Council did not communicate with herself and her brothers, who have Lasting Power of Attorney for their father, Mr Y, about changes to his care arrangements in January 2023. We have found the Council at fault for failing to keep Mr Yâs family informed of changes to his care plan and charges. The Council has agreed to apologise to the family, make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused and complete service improvements. Manchester City Council (23 017 125)
Summary: Mr B says the Council refused to increase his care hours, wrongly took away his direct payment and refused to respond to any more of his complaints. There is no fault by the Council. Winchester City Council (23 020 391)
Summary: Ms X complains the Council have not dealt with a Disabled Facilities Grant properly. There was service failure by the Council because it took too long to approve the Disabled Facilities Grant application. The Council should apologise, pay Ms X £450 and provide guidance to staff. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (24 005 073)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an adult social care provider. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the care provider responded to the complaint. We could not add to the care providers response and there is no worthwhile outcome from an investigation. The person using the service has now moved so is no longer receiving support from the care provider complained about. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (24 005 633)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about an alleged data breach and the Councilâs failure to respond properly to her data request. The Information Commissionerâs Office is better placed to deal with these complaints. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (23 016 108)
Summary: The investigation of this complaint about outstanding charges for residential care has been discontinued. An agreement was reached between the complainant and Council on the fees owed, so any injustice has been remedied. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (23 017 915)
Summary: Mrs X and Mrs W complain the Council failed to properly explain the charges for their late motherâs care home. They also say they were denied a choice of alternative care provider. There is evidence of fault by the Council, but this did not cause injustice to the family. Nevertheless, the Council needs to improve its working practices. Gloucestershire County Council (23 018 467)
Summary: We found no fault on Mr Fâs complaint on behalf of his mother about the Councilâs decision a payment to him in April 2021 following the sale of his motherâs property, amounted to a deprivation of assets. He said its actions caused distress. There was delay in responding to some of his correspondence, but the Councilâs apology remedied the injustice caused. Norfolk County Council (23 019 907)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a safeguarding investigation the Council carried out. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Councilâs actions to warrant an investigation. Gloucestershire County Council (23 020 540)
Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his wife, the Council consistently issued inaccurate invoices for the day centre she attends. The Council accepts it was not inputting the attendance data in a timely manner and so invoices were inaccurate. This is fault. Since June 2024 a new system has been introduced which should mean invoices are accurate. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (23 020 803)
Summary: Mx D complains the Council failed to meet their housing and social care needs when they were homeless. They said, as a result they experienced distress and had a loss of care support. We found the Councilâs Housing and Adult Social Care teams caused delays and faults in its processes. The Council will apologise and make payment to acknowledge the injustice Mx D experienced. Buckinghamshire Council (24 005 374)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision to take safeguarding action about the complainantâs services to individuals with social care needs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council conducted its safeguarding investigation. Further, the complainant could reasonably take court action against the Council in respect of her allegations of negligence, defamation and a breach of her human rights. West Sussex County Council (24 005 598)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial assessment for adult social care fees. The Councilâs valuation of a share in a property is in dispute. The Council must get a professional valuation, which it did. There is therefore not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation. The Ombudsman cannot settle the dispute over the property valuation and cannot achieve the outcomes the complainant seeks. Sheffield City Council (24 006 443)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a delay by the Council in responding to the complainantâs questions and its decision not to pay compensation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice. Regal Healthcare Properties Limited (24 008 604)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint Mrs X makes about a Care Provider, including the investigation it carried out into how her mother became injured. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Norfolk County Council (23 017 874)
Summary: We found fault with the care and support provided to Mr Y by the Council as it failed to properly assess his needs in the community. This caused Mr Yâs daughter, Mrs X, significant frustration and distress. The Council will apologise to Mrs X and pay her a financial remedy. The Council will also take remedial action to prevent similar problems occurring for other people. London Borough of Enfield (23 018 204)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council is chasing her brother for a Community Care charge debt. Miss X disputes the validity of the debt and says her brother did not receive the care charged for. We found fault with the Council charging for care since July 2017. We did not find fault with the Council charging for care up to this point. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X and remove all charges from 1 July 2017. The Council also agreed to write to Miss X to confirm the outstanding balance owed and offer an arrangement to repay the remaining outstanding balance owed in instalments. Bedford Borough Council (23 020 173)
Summary: Mr Y complained on behalf of his mother, Mrs X. He complained about how the Council dealt with Mrs Xâs non-residential care charges following her discharge from the hospital. There were some faults by the Council which caused injustice to Mrs X and Mr Y. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused. London Borough of Barnet (24 005 213)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about best interest decisions made under the Mental Capacity Act. The Court of Protection is better placed to decide what is in somebodyâs best interests. There is not enough evidence to support the Council acted with discrimination, and that is for a court to decide. Luton Borough Council (24 006 217)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council turning down Mr Xâs application for a disabled personâs parking permit. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision. London Borough of Lewisham (23 014 778)
Summary: We consider London Borough of Lewisham and Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust did not appropriately seek the views of Mrs Yâs supported accommodation before deciding she could not return there from hospital. Also, the Council did not carry out a Mental Capacity Act assessment and best interest decision in line with the relevant guidance. That caused Mrs Yâs son, Mr D, uncertainty. The Council and Trust should apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr D to recognise his injustice. They should also carry out service improvements. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (23 018 957)
Summary: The Council identified failings in some areas of care provided by a domiciliary care agency acting on its behalf before the complaint came to this office, but it failed to offer a remedy for the injustice caused. Buckinghamshire Council (24 000 013)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to justify our involvement. There is no worthwhile outcome to be achieved from an Ombudsman investigation. Thurrock Council (24 000 509)
Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it responded to safeguarding concerns raised about Mrs Y. I have seen no evidence which supports Mr Xâs claims that the Council made unfavourable assumptions about him. London Borough of Croydon (24 003 061)
Summary: Ms M complains about the way her sonâs care was managed by the Trust after he left hospital in June 2021. We will not investigate this complaint because the organisation has already admitted fault in several areas of Mr Nâs care. It has investigated several times, provided five written responses, improved its service and trained its staff to ensure the faults do not happen again. Further investigation by the Ombudsmen would not achieve anything more. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (24 005 244)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the outcome of an occupational therapy assessment and the Councilâs refusal to agree a disabled facilities grant for major adaptations. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Kent County Council (24 008 906)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Councilâs failure to investigate her complaints alleging poor care provision towards her late friend, Mr Y. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is no evidence of fault in the Councilâs responses to Ms X. City of Wolverhampton Council (24 005 315)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Council lying to him about not having to pay charges for the damage he caused to a hotel room the Council placed him in. This is because an investigation would not lead to any worthwhile outcomes. |
