| 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. Devon County Council (23 018 304)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council was at fault as it failed to arrange suitable care provision for her son Yâs needs causing distress and impact onto the family. We found fault because the Council did not ensure the care provision specified for Y in his Education Health and Care Plan was in place by September 2023. We have recommended a suitable remedy for the injustice caused in this case so have completed our investigation. T.L. Care (Havering) Limited (24 006 395)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Yâs complaint, made on behalf of Mr X, about the care providerâs decision to require him to move rooms at short notice, how it explained the decision, not assessing the possible impacts on Mr X beforehand, and how it dealt with her complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the care providerâs decision to move Mr X to warrant investigating. The impacts of the decision on him and how it was done do not amount to a significant personal injustice which justifies an investigation. We do not investigate providersâ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the issues giving rise to the complaint. Dorset Council (24 007 011)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the financial assessment the Council completed for her husband and its decision that there has been a deprivation of assets. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Cheshire East Council (24 007 128)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about a respite booking. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. Buckinghamshire Council (24 007 495)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision to reject his blue badge application. This is because the matters complained about could reasonably be, or have been, mentioned as part of legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. London Borough of Ealing (24 008 568)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about her auntâs Council arranged care. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now. The Orders Of St. John Care Trust (24 002 933)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the care provider not including her late mother Mrs Yâs wedding ring on her property inventory, and about the loss of the ring. There is not enough evidence the care providerâs inventory error led to the ringâs loss and the upset that caused Mrs X. There is no different outcome an investigation by us would achieve. It would be reasonable for Mrs X to pursue the legal liability finding she seeks against the care provider by claiming against its insurers and taking the matter to court. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (24 004 573)
Summary: The Council acknowledges there was a missed opportunity to explain the funding basis for the late Mr Xâs care home placement and has waived the fees for the period when Mr X was deemed to be a short stay resident. That remedies any injustice arising from that complaint. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council conducted the assessment of mental capacity. London Borough of Bromley (24 006 557)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the charges for her mother, Ms Yâs, care. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Norfolk County Council (24 007 575)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care fees. The Council has accepted fault and said what it will do to acknowledge the impact on the complainant. We are satisfied with the Councilâs actions to put things right. Suffolk County Council (23 002 800)
Summary: There was fault by the Council. It delayed carrying out a financial assessment which led to distress and uncertainty when the family were told of the fees owed a year later. The Council has apologised and waived the fees owed which remedies the injustice caused. Milton Keynes Council (23 004 517)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to safeguarding concerns. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Cambridgeshire County Council (24 000 406)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs Yâs package of care after a discharge from hospital. There is insufficient evidence of fault. Halton Borough Council (24 002 816)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the quality of care provided by her fatherâs care home and about the Councilâs handling of her safeguarding concerns. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, there is another body better placed to consider her complaints. Leicester City Council (23 000 772)
Summary: There was no fault in how the Council decided not to fund a ramp so Mr B could store a mobility scooter under its minor adaptations policy. However, the Councilâs communication about this was at times unclear, particularly on whether council tenants can apply for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). There was no fault in how it dealt with Mr Bâs request for other minor adaptations. Birmingham City Council (23 018 025)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed carrying out housing adaptations to a Council owned property required to meet a family member, Mr Yâs, needs. Mr X also complained about poor communication and delayed complaints handling. The Council was at fault. It delayed progressing the major housing adaptation, communicated poorly and delayed responding to Mr Xâs complaint. This caused Mr X and Mr Y an injustice. The Council has already apologised. It will also make a symbolic payment and act to improve its services. Surrey County Council (23 019 875)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint the Council disposed of property from his home. It is unlikely we would find fault and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Birmingham City Council (24 002 360)
Summary: Ms X said the Council was not providing the property protection service Mr Z was paying for and its failure to do so might affect Mr Zâs ability to meet his care costs. We found fault in the Councilâs service delivery but it did not cause Mr Z significant personal injustice. We also found fault in the Councilâs handling of Ms Xâs complaint about its property protection service, which was frustrating for Ms X. To put matters right, the Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and make a symbolic payment of £200. West Sussex County Council (24 005 924)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision relating to a personal budget, as well as transport costs, for Miss Xâs daughterâs care and support needs. It is unlikely we would find fault. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (24 010 381)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision regarding her motherâs residence and care. This is because this could be or has been raised in legal proceedings. London Borough of Haringey (24 010 432)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about unsuccessful applications for a Blue Badge and a Disabled Persons Freedom Pass. 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 by the Council. Lancashire County Council (23 018 203)
Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to properly safeguard her father who lived alone. I have not found fault by the Council. Cheshire West & Chester Council (24 007 914)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial assessment for adult social care charges, and the Councilâs decision about a deprivation of asset. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Councilâs decision-making process or reach a different outcome. London Borough of Brent (23 015 299)
Summary: Mr X complains about the Councilâs handling of his brotherâs (Mr Y) care and support package. The Council did not promptly share the outcome of its review with Mr Yâs family or warn them it would be recouping funds from Mr Yâs direct payment account. This caused distress and uncertainty to Mr Yâs family, for which the Council should apologise. The Council should also issue reminders to relevant staff to help avoid reoccurrence of the faults in this case. There was no evidence of procedural fault Councilâs reviews of Mr Yâs care and support package. Warwickshire County Council (23 019 532)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councilâs handling of the financial assessment process after she asked it to take over the commissioning of her father, Mr Yâs, care in a residential care home. We did not find the Council at fault. Dorset Council (24 002 786)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a failure by the Council to act on the complainant giving it notice that she wished to move from her supported living accommodation. This is because the Council has accepted it was at fault and provided a suitable remedy to the complainant which addresses the injustice caused. Further investigation would therefore unlikely lead to a different outcome. Bupa Care Homes (AKW) Limited (24 005 256)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the care her late father, Mr Y, received at a residential care home. This is because the Care Provider has investigated and responded and we are satisfied further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome. Leeds City Council (24 005 630)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care provided in a care home. We could not add to investigations already completed by the care provider and the safeguarding authority or achieve a different outcome. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (24 005 801)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision not to issue a Blue Badge. This is because the Council will offer the complainant another assessment. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (24 006 476)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failures in support, because the support complained about was not arranged by the Council. So, we have no powers to investigate the provider in this case. Northumberland County Council (24 007 040)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about damage caused to his carpet. This is because this is a complaint about negligence which is a legal matter for the courts to consider and decide. London Borough of Redbridge (24 007 100)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in paying an adult social care shared lives carer. The Council has now resolved the complaint by paying Ms B what it owed. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken to resolve the complaint. Brighton & Hove City Council (24 007 788)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council including incorrect information in a safeguarding report. Further investigation will not lead to a different outcome. Sunderland City Council (24 008 565)
Summary: The Ombudsmen will not investigate this complaint about an avoidably delayed hospital discharge. The Trust and the Council have already accepted there were failings and apologised for them. It is unlikely that an investigation would be able to find evidence of an unremedied injustice. London Borough of Harrow (24 009 036)
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. Bristol City Council (24 007 464)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about quality of service provided to Mr X by two care providers. The Council has already taken suitable action to remedy injustice caused to Mr X. North Northamptonshire Council (23 019 041)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to safeguard her son Mr Y from financial abuse. The Council commissioned care provider failed to update Miss X on the outcome of a safeguarding investigation. There was no fault in the way the Council investigated the safeguarding concern. Miss X also complained the Council commissioned care provider repeatedly cancelled hours and the Council failed to have sufficient oversight of this. There was fault in the care providerâs actions. The Council monitored this but failed to follow this up with service users. This was fault. The faults caused Miss X frustration and uncertainty. To remedy that injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and issue a reminder to staff. |
