| 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. Brighton & Hove City Council (23 002 512)
Summary: There is no evidence that the Council failed to consider Mrs Xs circumstances properly or failed to follow the guidance in respect of valuation of her home. However, the independent valuation process has not been tested out and that should be allowed to proceed. The investigation will be discontinued. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (23 005 717)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has failed to deal properly with her financial assessment by failing to take account of all her disability-related expenditure (DRE), leaving her to pay more than she can afford to pay for her care. The Council has not dealt properly with all Mrs Xs requests for DRE, leaving doubt over what she should be paying toward the cost of her care. It needs to reconsider some of her requests and take action to ensure it improves the way it deals with DRE in future. Surrey County Council (23 006 806)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint that the Council did not sell his late mothers home as required under a lasting power of attorney. That is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault as the Council never had legal authority to sell the home. In addition, there is not enough evidence of significant injustice to warrant an investigation. City of Doncaster Council (23 007 655)
Summary: The Council had insufficient understanding of Miss Xs medical condition to come to a view on her application for a blue badge, and failed to make further enquiries about this. This calls into question the reliability of the decision. Bristol City Council (23 012 706)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care the Council provided to Mr and Mrs Y because the complaint is out of time and there is not enough evidence of fault. London Borough of Brent (23 012 726)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care charges. There is not enough evidence of fault, and further investigation is unlikely to reach a different outcome. Hertfordshire County Council (23 013 153)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils refusal to allow a discretionary uplift to Mrs Bs Personal Expenses Allowance (PEA). This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an ombudsman investigation. Darlington Borough Council (23 013 340)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils management of Mrs Xs direct payments. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to result in a different outcome for Mrs X. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (22 015 379)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint further. Mr X did not suffer material injustice as a result of the alleged use by the Council of his signature and the Council has offered appropriate remedies for the remaining matters. Cheshire West & Chester Council (23 001 896)
Summary: There was some confusion about the end date of Mrs Xs residence at the first care home, but the Council was not at fault in requiring the assessed contributions to be paid. The Council has written off a significant amount of charges and agrees to offer an increased sum in acknowledgement of the poor communication HC-One Limited (23 003 065)
Summary: Mrs X complains about the quality of care her late father, Mr Y, received from the Care Provider for just over six days before he died. There was no fault in the quality of care or the Care Providers handling of Mrs Xs complaints. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (23 006 232)
Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the information given during the financial assessment process for a residential care placement. There was also no fault when the Council made a referral to the Office of the Public Guardian. Essex County Council (23 010 009)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a review of a mans eligibility for s117 aftercare. The recommendation from the review was not enforced and Mr X remains eligible for s117 aftercare. The Trust also apologised for the stress and frustration the failings in the process caused Mr Xs wife. We consider it is unlikely that an investigation would achieve anything more. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (23 011 926)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils failure to assess the late Mr B or undertake a carers assessment for his daughter Ms C. This is because the Council has reassessed and reduced Mr Bs charges to incorporate the weekly rate of carers allowance Ms C could have claimed and paid her 500 for the distress time and trouble she has incurred. We are satisfied this remedies the injustice caused by the Councils fault. Essex County Council (23 012 114)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council inappropriately seeking payment for care home fees. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would be able to provide an outcome the complainant would find satisfactory. My Homecare Assistance Limited (23 012 681)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about the behaviour of a carer. He says the carer refuses to abide by the wishes of another residents with regards to call times. This is because Mr X does not have consent to bring the complaint on the residents behalf. In addition, an investigation would not lead to any worthwhile outcomes. North Lincolnshire Council (23 012 697)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint that she raised several concerns that her mother was end of life, but that medical professionals disagreed with her. She also complains the Council said her mothers care charges were still outstanding when she had already paid the invoice. This is because the likely fault has not caused significant enough injustice. In addition, there is another body better placed to consider the complaint. Birmingham City Council (22 015 923)
Summary: We found fault by a Council, Trust and ICB concerning the discharge planning for MissE, a young woman with complex needs. We also found fault with the failure of these organisations to arrange proper Section 117 aftercare for Miss E. The Council, Trust and ICB will apologise for this, provide appropriate care and make a financial payment to recognise the impact on Miss E and her family. Staffordshire County Council (23 003 638)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about the Councils decisions not to meet some his father Mr Ys claims for disability-related expenses (DREs), and the Council delaying finalising his financial assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Councils decision-making to warrant investigation. Investigation of the claimed delay would not achieve a different outcome for Mr Y. Indigo Care Services (2) Limited (23 006 186)
Summary: Mr X complained about the quality of care provided to his late relative Mrs Y at the care home. There was no fault in the way the care home supported Mrs Ys eating and drinking or with her mobility. We cannot achieve any worthwhile outcome by further investigation of Mr Xs concerns about the delay in getting her a suitable chair or regarding what he was told about whether Mrs Y was at the end of her life. Richmond Care Villages Holdings Limited (23 013 079)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an incident on the Care Providers property and how the Care Provider dealt with the matter. This is because the complaint is not about actions that involve, or are connected to, the provision of adult social care. So, we have no power to investigate the complaint. Birmingham City Council (22 011 798)
Summary: The Council acted in line with Care and Support Statutory Guidance. So we do not uphold Mr Xs complaint about the Council's hourly direct payment rate or about the failure to support him to manage a direct payment. We have not investigated other complaints because they were not made to us within 12 months of Mr X and Mr Y becoming aware of them or have not been made to the Council. North Northamptonshire Council (23 002 345)
Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of his wife, Mrs X, about the standard of care she received from a Care Provider the Council had arranged. Mr X said the care was not always delivered in accordance with her care plan and visits were not made at the agreed times. We uphold part of Mr Xs complaint as the Care Provider did not deliver care in line with Mrs Xs care and support plan. We also find fault with the way the Council responded to Mr Xs complaint. The Council has already waived the outstanding balance on Mrs Xs account and has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and service improvements. Kent County Council (23 013 480)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint that the Council charged him for his residential care. This is not enough injustice to warrant an investigation. Birmingham City Council (22 017 157)
Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council handled her request for support and direct payments. We have found there was a delay by the Council in completing the assessment. This was fault and caused Ms X an injustice in the form of loss of service and uncertainty. We recommend the Council apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice. We have found no fault by the Council in the other matters Ms X complains about. Kent County Council (23 001 147)
Summary: There was fault by the Council. The Council failed to ensure that Occupational Therapy equipment was delivered for reablement care. It is not possible to remedy this injustice now, other than apologising, as the complainant is in a different care situation. The Councils reassessment and decision to charge for care at home after the complainant was no longer reaching the goals needed for reablement care was without fault. Kent County Council (23 004 980)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to consider all his health needs when he applied for a blue badge. We do not find fault with the Council, so we cannot therefore criticise the merits of its decision. Somerset Council (23 013 887)
Summary: Mr B asked Croydon Council to carry out an assessment of his mothers needs in April 2023 and the assessment has still not been carried out. Mr Bs mother resides in a care home in Somerset and both Croydon and Somerset Council said it was the other councils duty to assess Mr Bs mother. We have found fault in the delay and the failure of the councils to respond. The councils have agreed to apologise, pay a symbolic sum and Somerset Council will carry out the assessments. Warrington Care Services Limited (23 001 596)
Summary: We uphold Mrs Xs complaint about the way the Care Provider responded to her concerns when her care visit times were changed. We found the Care Provider failed to properly consider Mrs Xs preferences. As a result, Mrs X was caused unnecessary frustration and upset. We recommend the Care Provider apologises to Mrs X and reviews its processes. |
