| 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. Leicester City Council (24 000 164)
Summary: Mr C and Mrs C complain about the safeguarding action taken against them and the failure of the Council to safeguard Ms D from financial abuse. There is no fault in the Councilâs decision to start safeguarding proceedings. However it should have communicated its decision making more clearly to Mr C and Mrs C. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr C and Mrs C and make service improvements. London Borough of Lambeth (24 003 551)
Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to deal properly with the charges for her fatherâs care, including failing to take account of the fact he had dementia and his family could not access his money until after he died. The Council failed to deal properly with the charges for her fatherâs care. This resulted in it charging his estate legal costs and interest, despite having no policies for doing so. It also put Ms X to significant time and trouble in pursing the complaint. The Council needs to apologise and refund money to her fatherâs estate. It also needs to improve its working practices. Surrey County Council (24 009 999)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how best to meet someoneâs adult social care needs. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council has reached its decisions. The Council has decided the care package based on proper reviews and professional assessments. Even though the complainant disagrees with the Council, the Ombudsman could not achieve a different outcome. MML Finance Ltd (24 014 830)
Summary: Mrs X complained that the care provider restricted her visiting hours to her mother-in-law. Based on current evidence the complaint will not be upheld. The care provider was entitled to limit the times for Mrs Xâs visits. Cheshire West & Chester Council (24 014 877)
Summary: Mrs X complained that the Councilâs commissioned care provider did not provide good care and treatment for her husband. The Councilâs safeguarding investigation showed the care home had implemented all necessary measures to manage Mr Xâs health. The Council has now offered to waive the contribution as there was some poor communication by the care provider which caused distress to Mrs X. Norfolk County Council (24 018 619)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about a social workerâs handling of her motherâs care and support. This is because the complaint is outside our jurisdiction as the matters have been party to court proceedings. Cheshire East Council (24 019 064)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about lack of support from the Councilâs adult social services department. Any fault has not caused an injustice to Miss X. Leeds City Council (24 019 493)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about restricted visiting to a relative in a care home. It is unlikely we would add to the Councilâs investigation or achieve a significantly different outcome that would justify us investigating. H.A.S. Careplus Limited (24 020 177)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint that the Care Provider gave her relative, Mr Yâs belongings to a person who was not his next of kin, after his death. It is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more. Milton Keynes Council (24 020 250)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about her late mother Mrs Y being assaulted in a care home commissioned by the Council, and the Council not allowing Mrs Y to live with her. Investigation by us could not add to the one already conducted nor result in a different outcome. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcomes she seeks. London Borough of Waltham Forest (24 020 486)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the outcome of the occupational therapy assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. London Borough of Harrow (24 022 463)
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. Audley Willicombe Limited (24 004 148)
Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her parents, Mr and Mrs Y, that the Care Provider overcharged for care services, and provided a poor standard of care just before the care package ended. We have found fault with the actions of the Care Provider as it did not tell Mrs X about changes to the cost of her parents care package, meaning they were charged more. We also found fault with the actions of the Care Provider after carers were told not to assist Mr X. The Care Provider agreed to apologise, pay back the difference in care charges Mr and Mrs Y paid and carry out a service improvement. Sheffield City Council (24 010 548)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to provide clear information about charges for his late fatherâs care, did not properly investigate instances of overcharging and its response to his complaint was significantly delayed. We found there was fault in the information provided. We also found the investigation was not sufficient. We found the complaint response was late and insufficiently detailed. We recommended an apology, a further payment and actions to address the charging concerns Mr X raised. Revitalise Respite Holidays (24 012 697)
Summary: Ms X complained about the care Revitalise Respite Holidays (the Care Provider) provided to her daughter, Ms Y. Ms X is unhappy about how care workers treated Ms Yâs tightly coiled hair when it was in braids. The Care Provider was at fault for poor record keeping, a flawed investigation into Ms Xâs concerns and for not telling her when Ms Y no longer had her braids. This caused Ms X uncertainty, frustration and distress and meant Ms Yâs hair was damaged. To remedy the injustice to Ms X and Ms Y, the Care Provider will apologise to Ms X and pay her £250. Hampshire County Council (24 013 344)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council pursued him and his brother, Mr Y, for several years for a debt which the Council had previously agreed to write off. The Council was at fault. It had pursued Mr X for a debt it had previously agreed to cancel. The Council has already apologised. It has agreed to also pay Mr X £100 to acknowledge the distress and frustration this caused. Isle of Wight Council (24 015 174)
Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with Mr Yâs emergency care needs. The Council was at fault for failing to complete a mental capacity assessment and poor communication. This caused Mr Y to be without care for part of a day and Mr X distress and uncertainty. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment and remind staff of the need to carry out mental capacity assessments. Kent County Council (24 018 422)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision that his father can return home and about the outcome of his fatherâs financial assessment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. London Borough of Lewisham (24 018 726)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Council disposing of her fatherâs pots and pans in error. This is because it is a complaint about negligence which is a legal matter for the courts to consider and decide. We cannot decide a negligence claim or award compensation in the way Ms X seeks. North Northamptonshire Council (24 019 678)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs alleged failure to provide Mr Yâs care. We could not achieve a meaningful outcome given Mr Yâs familyâs clearly stated intention to begin court proceedings about the matter. Any investigation by us would prejudice those proceedings. Autism West Midlands (24 019 910)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X complaint about the closure of her sonâs care home and the way the care provider handled this process. This is because there is another body better placed to consider the complaint. Trafford Council (24 003 299)
Summary: A care provider complained that the Council had failed to make payments due in respect of care and support it had delivered. There was fault by the Council. It failed to make payments on time and failed to resolve matters when the care provider complained to it. The Council has made improvements to its processes to stop this from recurring. The Council should resolve the outstanding invoices and make an interest payment to the care provider. London Borough of Haringey (24 008 953)
Summary: A care home complained the Council was not paying care fees as it should. It said it had continued to provide care to its resident but had not been paid for this over a significant time. Based on evidence we find the Council is at fault and has caused an injustice. We have recommended the Council pay all outstanding fees and apologise. North East Lincolnshire Council (24 015 590)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of domiciliary care. The Council has refunded the cost of Mrs Yâs care and apologised to her daughter, Mrs X. Further investigation by us is unlikely to achieve anything more meaningful. The Fremantle Trust (24 019 026)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of care provided in a care home. This is because any injustice is insufficient to justify our involvement. Somerset Council (24 019 091)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint, about the Council withdrawing funding for care Mr Y without notice. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (24 019 320)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failing to respond to a telephone message and failing to provide emergency adult social care support. The Councilâs initial two-day delay did not cause a significant enough injustice to justify an investigation. It is unlikely the delay affected the outcome that a suitable available placement could not be found. We would not add to the Councilâs investigation or achieve a different outcome. London Borough of Haringey (24 002 836)
Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to make the disabled adaptations Ms X needs in her home. The Councilâs decision making was not in line with the law and guidance and it wrongly insisted Ms X must have all the works to her property it thought she needed. As a result, Ms X has spent over a year without access to a downstairs toilet. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise, progress works to Ms Xâs home and make payments to her. The Council will also act to improve its services. Salford City Council (24 008 680)
Summary: The Council has already accepted fault for delay and poor communication in its handling of Mr Xâs application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. The Councilâs actions in response to Mr Xâs complaint are a suitable remedy for the injustice caused. We have not, therefore, made any recommendations. Wakefield City Council (24 018 236)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision to make his motherâs residential care placement permanent because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision. London Borough of Barnet (24 018 955)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision to decline her blue badge application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. North Yorkshire Council (24 019 521)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charges for adult social care while in hospital. It is standard practice to continue to pay to keep your room in a care home available for you to return to. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation. Essex County Council (24 020 013)
Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to properly consider her complaints about the quality of domiciliary care provided to her late relative, Ms Y, in 2023 to early 2024. We will not investigate. This is because there is no evidence of fault with the Councilâs response as it was not responsible for the care provision. Sheffield City Council (24 012 559)
Summary: Ms Y complained the Council wrongly decided her late mother, Mrs X, deprived herself of assets to reduce her care fees. The Council made this decision in line with relevant law and guidance without fault. Westminster City Council (24 018 783)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Council not providing her with enough care hours and about the Councilâs refusal to allow her food expenses to be considered disability related expenditure. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Leeds City Council (24 018 964)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about a care home being unable to find and return her late motherâs clothing. This is mainly because we could not add to the previous investigation carried out by the care home. Miss X could reasonably take court action if she wants compensation. Shropshire Council (24 019 559)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a financial assessment for adult social care charges. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and investigation would not achieve a different outcome. Blackpool Borough Council (24 019 619)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs delay in dealing with his late father Mr Yâs care fees and it not always contacting him directly about the fees. There is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks from his complaint. Worcestershire County Council (24 019 705)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint that the Council proposed an unsuitable care placement for her adult son, Mr Y, which put him at risk of homelessness and caused her distress and financial loss. There is insufficient evidence of fault and we could not achieve what Ms X wants. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (24 019 866)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Councilâs handling of her blue badge application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. Essex County Council (24 021 202)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed processing the complainantâs application for a blue badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. London Borough of Barnet (24 022 766)
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. |
