A weekly update on adult social care complaint decisions

Summary: Miss B complained that the Council had failed to properly consider her application for disability-related expenditure (DRE) in line with the Care Act guidance and the law and delayed in considering her appeal and complaint about the decisions. We found fault with the Councils approach. The Council has now agreed to include the disputed items as DRE. It has also agreed to pay Miss B 250 and review its procedures for the future.

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his relative Mr Y, about the live-in care given to Mr Y by the Care Provider. We decided not to uphold the complaint finding insufficient evidence of any fault in the Providers service causing injustice to Mr Y.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide appropriate care and support when her sister (Miss Y) was discharged from hospital. We found Miss Ys needs were documented appropriately but the Council failed to ensure the agency providing the care had sufficient time to complete the required tasks. We found this was fault. We recommended an apology and a review of learning to avoid the same situation re-occurring.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about the Council not having a contractual relationship with a care home and of refusing to pay the care homes increased care charges. This is because we do not have appropriate consent for the care provider to make this complaint on behalf of its residents. In addition, there is another body better placed to consider the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge. This is because the Council will offer the complainant a face-to-face mobility assessment.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an application for a concessionary bus pass. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the Council has now issued a pass.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to meet his care needs. The Council failed to complete a review of Mr Xs care needs for 17 months, failed to consider Mr Xs capacity to make decisions about his care and finances, stopped his direct payments without notice and failed to meet his care needs in the meantime. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X, make a symbolic payment for the distress caused to him, and review his care needs and direct payment arrangement.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the care her late mother, Mrs Y, received in a Council commissioned care home and a delayed response to her complaint. The Council commissioned care home responded appropriately to changes in Mrs Ys condition. The Council commissioned care home was at fault for not updating Mrs X of Mrs Ys condition, not telling her Mrs Y was in hospital and the Council was at fault for the delay in responding to Mrs Xs complaint. The Council will apologise and pay Mrs X 300 for the distress, uncertainty and frustration caused by the faults identified.

Summary: Mr D complained about the actions of the Council in respect of his mother, Mrs B when she needed residential care in September 2020 until she moved to a different care home in September 2022. We have not identified fault in the move to a care home in September 2020 or the decision to move her into the dementia unit in February 2021. But we did find the Council delayed in carrying out a care reassessment after Mr D indicated he wished to move Mrs B to a different setting nearer to him, causing him uncertainty and distress. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr D, pay him 300 and improve its procedures for the future.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Councils failure to safeguard Mrs Ys adult son. The law says complaints must be brought to us within 12 months of becoming aware of the matter, unless there is good reason for delay.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs Cs care provider. This is because we are satisfied the actions taken by the Care Provider remedies the injustice.

Summary: Ms C complains the Council took unnecessary safeguarding action, did not follow her advice, and placed her son, MrD at risk. The Council is not at fault for carrying out safeguarding, there are faults however in the process it followed and in its communication with Ms C. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms C, make a symbolic payment, and remind staff about the policies they need to follow when completing safeguarding.

Summary: A care home, acting on behalf of the Council, failed to provide an appropriate level of care to Miss Y. The Council failed to properly investigate the complaint, it accepted the word of the care home and failed to give due weight to information from Miss Ys representative.

Summary: Mr Y complains about the Councils decision to allow an increase in the fees paid for his mothers residential care home placement through a Deferred Payment Agreement. He also complains about the Councils handling of his complaint. We find the care home and the Council notified Mr Y of the upcoming increase. We also find there is limited injustice because Mr Y had the opportunity to review his options in the event he was not happy with the new fees. However, there is some fault in the Councils handling of the complaint which it has apologised for.

Summary: Mrs F complains on behalf of her son, Mr J, about his care and support at a supported living placement. There was fault in the care and support provided to Mr J which caused distress and put Mr J at risk of harm. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to Mrs F and Mr J to remedy this. There was fault in the way a best interest decision was recorded, but this did not cause injustice. We have ended our investigation into the issue of utilities bills as this is outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council charged for days when her husband, Mr X, could not attend his usual day care centre for support. The Council was at fault for giving Mrs X incorrect information about the need to give 24 hours notice for non-attendance at the day care centre. It agreed to apologise and has waived the charges for days Mr X could not attend.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council dealt with the care and support needs assessment for his father. We found fault with the Councils actions which caused uncertainty and distress for Mr X and his family. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X and Mr Y and remind staff about its practice.

Summary: The Council failed to properly assess Mr Xs eligibility for a blue badge.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xs complaint that the Council wrongly assessed her grandmothers care needs. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about a letter the Council sent him and about its response to his complaint about it. This is because the matter has not caused Mr X any significant personal injustice which is serious enough to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained he was prevented from visiting his mother and providing her with home cooked food whilst she resided in a Care Home. He says not being able to visit his mother affected him emotionally. The Care Home is at fault for not following its Visitors Policy and Procedure.

Summary: A safeguarding investigation by the Council found serious failings by the Care Provider before the complaint came to this office, however, it failed to provide a remedy for the late Mrs Ys family.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X complaint about unsatisfactory care provided to her mother by her care home. She complains about matters that occurred between 2018 and 2022. This is because her complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council was at fault in the way it provided care and support to Mr Y and communicated with her about Mr Ys care causing distress. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed and supported Mr Ys care and support needs and communicated with Ms X. We found fault by the Council as it delayed carrying out a review of Mr Ys care and support plan. But this did not cause a significant injustice to Mr Y who was continuing to receive care and support from the Council. So, we have completed our investigation.

Summary: Miss X complained about the care her late father, Mr Y, received at home from a care provider acting on the Councils behalf. Miss X also complained about how the Council charged for Mr Ys care. The Council was at fault in how it transferred Mr Y to its long-term care team, for delay in carrying out a financial assessment, for a poor complaint response and for the Care Providers visits being too short and sometimes very late. This caused Miss X injustice for which the Council will apologise and pay her 300. The Council will also remind the Care Provider of proper practice in home care.

Summary: Mr A complained about the way a Council and two NHS Trusts arranged for his mother to move into a care home following a short admission in hospital. We have not found fault with the decision to offer a respite placement. Further, we have not found fault with the Councils actions when the respite period came to an end. However, we have found fault that a care home, acting on behalf of the Council, destroyed records too early. This caused frustration and will leave uncertainty. The Council agreed to provide an apology and to take steps to help prevent recurrences.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council assessed his blue badge applications. We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint because events occurred too long ago and he could have complained earlier.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council did not provide a Visual Impaired Support Worker. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in completing financial assessment for adult social care charges. The Council has apologised and waived a portion of the charges to acknowledge the impact of its delay. The charges are due regardless of the delay so we would not recommend the Council waives them all. We are satisfied with the Councils actions and could achieve nothing further. The Council should allow a repayment plan of the remaining debt.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about the Councils relocation grant (RG) process and decision in 2019, that it did not help with her new propertys purchase costs, and that it has not helped others with its RG scheme. We cannot investigate MrsXs complaint because it is late and there are no good reasons to do so now. Even if we accepted the complaint as in time, we would not have investigated because there is not enough evidence of Council fault to have justified an investigation and we could not have achieved the outcome she wants. There would be insufficient personal injustice to Mrs X from the Councils current use of the scheme to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge. This is because the Council has offered to accept a new application from the complainant.

Summary: We uphold Ms Ys complaint about the care and treatment of her sister, Ms X. We found fault by the Care Home in the care it provided to Ms Xs and its record keeping. We also found fault in the way the Mental Health Trust communicated with Ms Y. This meant Ms X did not always receive the care she was entitled to. Ms Y has also been caused distress, frustration and uncertainty. We recommend the Care Home and the Mental Health Trust apologise to Ms Y. The Care Home will also pay Ms Y 200.

Summary: There is no fault by the Council in reducing Mr Xs personal budget because the Council carried out an assessment before doing so and reviewed the care and support plan six weeks after the reduction. This is in line with law and guidance. An officers conduct in a meeting was appropriate and the Council made reasonable adjustments to the reporting requirements for direct payments. The Council did not stop Mr Xs direct payment.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs Xs mothers care in the lead up to her death. We could not add to the investigations that have already taken place, and we could not achieve a meaningful outcome for Mrs X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not making a care assessment referral accessible. This is because the Council provided the complainant an alternative means to complete the self-referral which was equivalent to his preferred option. There is no evidence of the complainant suffering a serious enough injustice to warrant an investigation. In addition, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about the outcome of his occupational therapy assessment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about errors and inaccuracies contained in a S42 safeguarding report. This is because we could not add to the Councils responses regarding this complaint or achieve anything more for Mr B.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care providers actions leading up to, and following, Miss Xs sons death. The coroner made a decision about the cause of his death, and we have no power to investigate the matter or change that decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about direct payments. That is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion and consider it now.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Bs complaint about his late mothers, Mrs Cs, care provider charging for her care. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Care Provider to warrant an ombudsman investigation.

Summary: There was fault in how the Council handled significant changes to Mrs Cs care package. It had not reviewed this regularly, and did not seek to agree the changes with Mr and Mrs C, nor give MrC proper notice when he was employed to deliver care to his wife. The Council also took too long to review its assessment of their sons care needs. The Councils shortcomings caused Mr and Mrs C distress and uncertainty and it has agreed to remedy this.