A weekly update on adult social care complaint decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils failure to tell Mr B the outcome of his fathers, Mr Cs financial assessment. This is because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault to warrant an ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint regarding the Councils failure to assess Mr Xs needs for several years or its decision to request Mr X return overpayments he received. This is because the complaint relates to events that took place more than 12 months ago and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to bring them to us at the time. Further, an investigation would be unlikely to find fault on the Councils part.

Summary: We upheld Mr Xs complaints about not providing him with information on charging and about the assessment of his needs. The Council did not complete a needs assessment in line with the Care Act 2014 and did not give Mr X full written information about charges. This caused avoidable confusion and distress. The Council will apologise, reduce the invoice by 250 and take action described in this statement to minimise the risk of the same thing happening again.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that supported living staff did not respond to an emergency alarm. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about his sons adult social care provider. That is because the complaint is late.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about lack of consistency and funding for care home placements. This is because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault with the Councils actions to warrant an ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered Mr Xs safeguarding referral relating to his sister. Any fault in the Councils actions did not cause injustice because it did not affect the outcome of the Councils decision-making.

Summary: The complaint is about how the Council completed a financial assessment for the charge for Mr Ys care package. We did not uphold most of the complaints. However, the decision to treat the purchase of a car as a deliberate deprivation of capital was flawed as the decision-maker did not apply the relevant tests in statutory guidance and there was no contemporaneous written record. The Council will apologise and reconsider the decision.

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his mother, Mrs Y, that the Council unfairly determined gifts of money made to family members were intentional deprivation of assets available to pay for her care. Mr X says this has caused them distress and has affected them financially. We have found fault in the Council for failing to consider motivation in its decision on whether deprivation of assets had taken place. We recommend the Council apologise and review its decision in line with the applicable guidance.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xs complaint about the care provided to her relative, Ms Y, in a Council-commissioned care home. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs Y suffering falls in a care home. We could not add to the investigation the Council carried out. Nor could we achieve a more meaningful outcome, as the care provider has already accepted it was at fault and apologised.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about paying for adult social care. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. It has followed the correct process to decide how much the client can contribute toward their care support, including considering the extra costs they have because of their disability.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils refusal to provide Mrs B with information about Ms D. This is because we could not add to the Councils response or make a different finding of the kind Mrs B wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint that the Council refused to include medicinal cannabis in his disability related expenditure. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council dealt with a safeguarding investigation about the care and support provided to her adult child, Ms Y. There were some faults with the Councils safeguarding enquiry process. This caused injustice to Ms Y and MrsX. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Councils decision to stop paying transport costs for Mr Ys trips to his vocational work placement. Mr X said this is part of Mr Ys care and support plan and the Council should pay. We did not find fault in the Councils decision-making.

Summary: We uphold Ms Xs complaint about home care, charging and carers support. The Council failed to give appropriate information and advice, failed to review Ms Ys care and support plan when Ms X raised concerns about the Care Provider and delayed issuing a first invoice. It also failed to process a carers direct payment. This caused avoidable confusion, shock and distress. The Council will apologise, agree a repayment plan and make the payment to Ms X set out in this statement.

Summary: There was no fault in how the Council decided what support Miss X needed after an assessment of care support and needs. It considered relevant information and there is no obvious flaw in how it decided. There was some fault in how it recorded its rationale for that decision and that fault caused Miss X an injustice. The Council have already taken action which is sufficient to remedy Miss Xs injustice.

Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Council in this complaint. The Council was entitled to seek supporting evidence for Mr Xs blue badge application, when Mr X refused, the Council was entitled to refuse the application.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xs complaint about Hartcliffe Nursing Homes actions before and after Mr Ys admission to hospital. We are unlikely to achieve a different outcome for her.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the detail contained on invoices for residential adult social care. This is because it does not cause significant injustice to warrant our involvement, we could not add to the Care Providers investigation, or reach a different outcome.

Summary: Miss X complains about the Councils decision to reduce her daughter, Miss Ys, care package from 15 hours per day to 14 hours per day. Miss X also complains about a significant delay in completing a review of Miss Ys needs. We have found fault with the Councils decision making, communication and handling of the complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and service improvements to remedy the injustice caused to Miss Y and Miss X.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about the Councils refusal to recommend an installation of a driveway via a disabled facilities grant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We found fault with a nursing home regarding the standard of its record-keeping. This caused Ms Y distress and uncertainty. The nursing home will apologise for this and take action to prevent similar problems occurring in future. The nursing home will also make a symbolic payment in recognition of Ms Ys distress.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failures in care assessment. This is because any failure to adequately understand and meet needs is a failure by the NHS. The NHS has the responsibility to meet the adults care needs in this case. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman is better placed to consider this complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care at home. The Council accepts failures in care support and delay responding to the complaint. The Council has apologised and waived the care fees. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about the Councils charges for his mother, Mrs Ys, care. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Providers alleged failure to provide appropriate care for Mr Xs ex-partner Ms Y. This is because the complaint concerns events that took place more than 12 months ago and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate them now.

Summary: Ms Y complains about aspects of her mothers care, both before and after an admission to hospital in 2022. She also says the actions of the Council caused a delay in the hospital discharge and consequently her mother caught Pneumonia. The Council has already upheld most elements of the complaint and offered a remedy. We also uphold some further points. However, in our view, the remedy already offered is proportionate.

Summary: Mr Y complains about the Councils failure to identify a suitable long-term supported living placement which appropriately meets his assessed care and support needs. We find some fault in the Councils actions causing injustice to Mr Y. However, we also note the complexity of Mr Ys needs and several factors which have limited the Councils ability to progress the case.

Summary: Ms X complains about poor care provided to her father, Mr Y, whilst at a Council commissioned care home. We have found fault by the Council causing an injustice to Ms X. The Council has already produced an action plan to address the faults identified in this statement. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment for the distress caused to Ms X.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to ensure his late mother, Mrs Y, had sufficient personal budget to fund her care costs, delayed reassessing her needs and failed to properly consider his request for disability related expenditure in her financial assessment. The Council was at fault for not clearly setting out Mrs Ys personal budget in her support plan, for significant delay in reviewing her care needs and for failing to properly consider Mr Xs request for disability related expenditure. This caused Mr X frustration and uncertainty and meant Mrs Y and the family had to cover some of the care costs for longer than they should have. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, backdate the revised personal budget to January 2023, review the disability related expenditure and provide guidance to staff.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the support arranged to meet her son, Mr Ys, social care needs. There was fault in how Organisation B, acting on behalf of the Council, arranged social care support for Mr Y, how it communicated with Mrs X and delays in responding to Mrs Xs complaint. This caused Mr Y to miss out of some of the support he should have received and which caused both him and Mrs X avoidable distress. The Council agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy and ensure the information about how to complaint about adult social care is up-to-date.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils refusal to pay the full cost of Mrs Cs care fees during the 12-week property disregard period. This is because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils failure to safeguard Mr Xs parents. The courts are best placed to consider claims for significant sums of compensation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charging for adult social care. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a blue badge application because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.