| 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. Akari Care Ltd (23 017 998)
Summary: We do not find the Care Provider at fault for sending an invoice to the complainant for his late sisterâs care. We accept the complainant did not know of the invoice until after his sister died. But we find the Care Provider had tried to make him aware sooner. Suffolk County Council (23 018 285)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Councilâs care provider, Stradbroke Court, was wrong to give her mother notice to leave, causing avoidable distress to her and her family. There should have been no reason for her mother to move from Stradbroke Court. The decision to evict her caused avoidable distress and put her at risk of harm. The Council needs to apologise and make symbolic payments to Mrs X and her mother. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (24 003 483)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Council chasing her for payment of an invoice she had already paid. This is because we could not add to the Councilâs investigation. Ms X has made additional complaints, which it is appropriate for the Council to investigate and respond before we consider whether our involvement is justified. Bedford Borough Council (24 003 916)
Summary: We have decided not to investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs delay in carrying out a financial assessment. The Council has upheld the complaint and agreed to refund part of the care costs, which is an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the lack of initial costs information and its delay in completing the financial assessment. It will also share the learning from this complaint with relevant staff to prevent recurrence of the fault. Warwickshire County Council (24 005 016)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not providing a social work service to Mr X. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is insufficient evidence of fault. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (24 005 149)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about care charges for her late relative, Ms Yâs residential care. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Bath and North East Somerset Council (24 006 464)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a reduction in Mr Xâs care and support. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision, so we cannot question the outcome. Birmingham City Council (24 006 666)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about his late fatherâs care fees. The complaint is late and there is not a good reason for the delay. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (24 007 113)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an Occupational Therapy assessment resulting in Miss Xâs toilet being too high. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Councilâs actions. Any ongoing delay by Miss Xâs housing association is a matter for the Housing Ombudsman. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (23 015 801)
Summary: We have not found fault with the way the Council assessed Mrs Câs needs for care and support and offered her different options to meet her needs and move from her current accommodation. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (24 000 679)
Summary: Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of his father the Council failed to complete an assessment in the allocated time which led to him being in an unsuitable setting. Mr X says his family were charged for one-to-one care which he does not believe they should have been. Mr X says this has caused his family distress and they have incurred costs they shouldnât have. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for failing to advise the likely costs of the care. We recommend the Council apologises and pays a financial payment to Mr X. Cheshire East Council (24 005 597)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about what happened when a package of care at home ended. The package of care ended under the terms of the contract, so there is not enough evidence of fault. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would reach a different or worthwhile outcome. So investigation is not justified. Birmingham City Council (23 006 949)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs adult social care provision as there is not enough evidence of fault causing significant injustice. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (23 020 436)
Summary: Mr B complained the Council relied on incorrect and irrelevant factors when it decided to include his grandmotherâs house in her financial assessment. We find no fault with the Councilâs decision making. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (23 021 078)
Summary: Mrs Z, on behalf of her father Mr X, complained the Council allowed a debt to accrue for adult social care services. The Council accepts fault in its failure to communicate with Mr X about the unpaid domiciliary care charges and allowing them to accrue to over £9,000. The Council has already taken action to provide a suitable remedy for this complaint. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (24 000 561)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs complaint-handling. It is not a good use of public funds to consider complaints processes in isolation. In any event, the substantive matter Mr X complained to the Council about would now be too late for us to consider, and there is insufficient evidence of fault or injustice in other more recent elements of the complaint. Brighton & Hove City Council (24 001 276)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs installation of a hand rail in Mr Xâs home. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (24 003 050)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the failure to tell the complainant of her relativeâs death. We understand the distress this caused, but we are satisfied the care provider, on behalf of the council, has given a thorough response, apologised, and will seek to improve future service. We would not achieve anything further. While this does not answer all the complainantâs questions, it would not be proportionate for us to investigate to seek such information. Buckinghamshire Council (24 004 563)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision to revoke direct payments for a care worker who was providing care to her child. Further investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome. Liverpool City Council (24 005 148)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council was at fault in the way a care home it commissioned cared for her mother Mrs Y causing distress. We have found no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it has charged Mrs Y for her stay at the care home. We found no evidence of fault in the standard of care provided to Mrs Y over her weight and nutritional needs. The Council has accepted there was fault in the way the care provider responded to Mrs Xâs complaints about the matter, apologised and offered a suitable remedy in recognition of the distress caused. We found fault in the way the care home dealt with Mrs Yâs hearing aids, glasses and clothing which has adversely impacted onto Mrs X. I have recommended a suitable remedy in this case, so we have completed our investigation. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (24 005 281)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs refusal to pay her motherâs full care home fees and its decision that her mother can be safely moved to a cheaper care home. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused by the likely fault. London Borough of Brent (24 005 942)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council delay managing an empty property. The Council has accepted its delays and offered a symbolic payment to acknowledge the impact. We are satisfied with the Councilâs actions. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further. The complainant wants to claim for damage to his property. The relevant insurers or a court would be better placed to decide liability for damage to property. Staffordshire County Council (23 009 764)
Summary: Mr X complains there was fault in the Councilâs care assessment of his mother-in-law, Mrs J. He says this caused family disagreement and financial loss because he and his sister-in-law considered they had no option but to start legal action which was later found to be unnecessary. The Council was at fault, but it did not cause the claimed injustice. Cheshire East Council (23 017 678)
Summary: Ms X complained for her father, Mr Y, about the Councilâs decision to find there was a deprivation of Mr Yâs assets when the family bought a life insurance bond following the sale of Mr Yâs home. There was no fault in the Councilâs decision-making. Kent County Council (23 019 177)
Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her son, Mr Y about the way the Council dealt with his day service. The Council failed to provide a day service for Mr Y and there was inadequate communication about this matter. This caused distress, uncertainty and frustration to Mrs X and Mr Y. The Council has already apologised for this and offered a payment, it will also take action to address the issue of the day service. London Borough of Redbridge (23 020 054)
Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of Mrs Y that the Council has overcharged for her care. The Council is at fault because it did not review Mrs Yâs care needs or address Mr Xâs concerns about excessive care provision early enough. Mrs Y was charged for unnecessary care provision. The Council should apologise, recalculate care charges, provide guidance to staff and review the Care Providerâs action plan to identify other learning. Kent County Council (24 005 234)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Council placing him in a mental health care home. This is because there are no worthwhile outcomes achievable from an investigation. In addition, some of Mr Xâs complaints are late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint. Dorset Council (24 005 784)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint that the Councilâs financial assessment was wrong. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Wiltshire Council (24 005 937)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about continuity of adult social care when moving to another council area. Any fault of the Council does not cause the injustice of a lack of support once moved, because that was the responsibility of the new authority. There is no worthwhile outcome to justify an investigation. We cannot ask the Council to backdate care it was not responsible for. Lincolnshire County Council (24 006 015)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Council not providing him with the care and support he feels he needs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Brampton View Limited (23 014 321)
Summary: Ms X complains about the quality of care her parents received during a respite stay in September 2022 and the way in which her complaints about this were handled. The Care Provider has investigated Ms Xâs concerns, apologised and is taking action to improve. We could not add to the Care Providerâs responses or make a different finding of the kind Ms X wants. Stay Independent at Home Ltd (24 005 561)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care in the clientâs home. This is because thorough investigations have already taken place and actions taken in response. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would achieve a significantly different outcome to justify investigation. Nightingale Hammerson (24 000 223)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care Mr B received at the care providerâs home after leaving hospital, which his son Mr C says contributed to a significant decline in his health and caused his family distress. This is because we have no power to investigate the provision of health care rather than social care, and because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the care provider kept Mr Bâs family informed more generally about personal social care matters. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (23 013 793)
Summary: We uphold Mrs Yâs complaint about her grandmotherâs care. We found fault with Mrs Xâs continence care and some aspects of her end of life care. We also found fault with the Care Homeâs record keeping and the Councilâs communication. As a result, Mrs X did not always receive the care she needed. Mrs Y and her mother were also caused frustration and uncertainty. We recommend the Council and the Care Home apologise to Mrs Y and her mother and make improvements to processes. |
