| 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. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (23 009 454)
Summary: Ms C complains the Council placed her mother in law, MrsD in a care home rated inadequate by the Care Quality Commission where she went onto receive poor care. The Council is not at fault for the lack of choice in the care home; however the care home failed to properly assess Mrs D and its records are incomplete. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to apologise to MrsD and Ms C and make symbolic payments to acknowledge the uncertainty caused by these failures. Through its commissioning role it will also review the care homes record keeping, falls policy and how staff are trained to support people with communication needs. London Borough of Haringey (23 009 665)
Summary: Ms B complained about the Councils delay in carrying out assessments of her mothers needs for care and support and her finances which meant that the Council failed to pay her mothers care home fees. On the evidence we have seen, there was fault. The Council has agreed to apologise, refund Mrs C and carry out a service improvement. Manchester City Council (23 010 915)
Summary: Ms A complains the Council did not properly advise Mrs X about care contributions her son Mr X had to pay when he moved into residential care. We found fault by the Council. It has agreed a suitable remedy. MACC Care Limited (23 011 820)
Summary: Mrs Z complains about the standard of care provided to her mother at Wolfrun Rose Care Home and the delay in responding to a complaint about this. We will not pursue the complaint about the standard of care because Mrs Zs mother has died and so a personal remedy cannot be provided. There was fault in the complaint handling and the action already taken by the care provider is considered appropriate. Leeds City Council (23 012 516)
Summary: Mrs Y complained that services failed to provide funding for her fathers post-hospital care for long enough. We found that an Integrated Care Board funded the persons care for an appropriate length of time. However, we found fault in the way the Council explained the process to the family. This caused avoidable stress, frustration and time and trouble for Mrs Y. In addition, we found fault in the way the Council responded to the familys request for a meeting to discuss their complaint. We recommended that the Council apologises, makes a small financial payment to recognise the injustice and provides evidence of its learning from the complaint. London Borough of Newham (23 014 494)
Summary: Miss Y complains about the Councils decision to refuse her application for a Blue Badge. She also complains about the process followed by the Council when responding to her concerns and the significant time and trouble caused by its delay. The Council has already apologised and offered a payment of 180 in recognition of Miss Ys distress. The Council will increase this to 250 because of the significant delay and for the fault in the handling of the complaint. There is further fault causing injustice because the Council did not properly consider Miss Ys application for a Blue Badge. London Borough of Havering (23 015 224)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not inform the Department of Work and Pensions that Mr X had been admitted permanently to a residential care home. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (23 017 052)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the standard of property works funded by the Council under two sets of DFGs in 2018 and 2021. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant investigating the more recent works funded by the Council. We cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants in respect of works completed in 2018 given the passage of time. Nottinghamshire County Council (23 017 196)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care charges. This is because it is a late complaint, with no good reason why the complainant could not raise it sooner. Buckinghamshire Council (23 017 805)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care, and the Councils communication with the complainant. The main issues complained about have been known to the complainant for more than 12 months, have been heard at court, or the complainant could reasonably have taken to court. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find the court action was misconceived, and it is not a good use of our resource to only look at complaint handling. Corner House Care Limited (23 018 277)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Bs complaint about care provided to her late aunt, Mrs C. This is because further investigation could not make a finding of the kind Mrs B wants. Mrs C is now deceased so we could not provide her with a remedy even if we investigated and found evidence of fault. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (23 018 468)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about a data breach by the Council. This is because this is a matter best considered by the Information Commissioners Office. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (22 015 748)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council withdrew his care package and did not reinstate it until a solicitor intervened. The Council was not at fault for withdrawing the care package but was at fault for delay and not being proactive to resolve the situation. It should apologise, make a payment to remedy the injustice to Mr X who had to arrange and pay for his own care, and ensure staff learn lessons from what happened. Durham County Council (23 005 329)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care charges. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. London Borough of Waltham Forest (23 007 950)
Summary: The Council acknowledges there were errors in the way it issued an incorrect invoice to Mr X, causing Mr X and his elderly mother distress. Mr X did not suffer any financial loss as a result. The Council has apologised for its actions and will now also offer an amount of 300 to Mr X for the distress caused. London Borough of Croydon (23 008 097)
Summary: Mrs Y complained about the way the Council dealt with Mr Xs social care support and its response to her complaint. We have found fault by the Council in failing to review Mr Xs need for support managing his finances, and failing to consider part of Mrs Ys complaint, but this did not cause any personal injustice. We have not found fault on the other parts of Mrs Ys complaint. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (23 013 736)
Summary: There was fault by the Councils care provider, Akari Care. It failed to keep complete and contemporaneous records. It did not establish what had happened at the first stage of its complaint response. It did not provide care to Mr X when he became distressed. This caused distress to Mr X and his friend who represents him. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (23 015 301)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged failure by the Council to meet social care needs or appropriately safeguard the complainant from the risk of harm. This is because we are unlikely to find fault with the Councils handling of these matters. Cornwall Council (23 018 254)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Bs complaint about the Council charging the late Mrs C for care. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an ombudsman investigation. London Borough of Hillingdon (23 007 074)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councils decision to include a property abroad in her mother, Mrs Ys, financial assessment. There was no fault in the Councils decision making. Richmond Villages Operations Limited (23 004 404)
Summary: Ms C complains the Care Provider failed to act properly after her mother, Mrs D had a fall which caused a decline in her health. The Care Provider is at fault for failing to properly record interventions, complete risk assessments, obtain medical help, and consider Mrs Ds communication needs. This delayed Mrs D receiving medical help and treatment. To remedy the complaint the Care Provider has agreed to apologise to Ms C, make her a symbolic payment, and remind care staff about the need to properly record and analyse interventions. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (23 007 334)
Summary: Mr X complained about the quality of care, the Councils commissioned care provider, Bartholemew lodge nursing home Ltd, provided to his mother Mrs Z. We find the Council was at fault. This caused significant distress to Mrs Z and Mr X. To address this injustice caused by fault, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and remind staff of the relevant guidance. East Sussex County Council (23 009 720)
Summary: MrX complained about the way the Council billed him for top-up fees. We find the Council at fault for providing duplicate invoices and for not clarifying their process. We recommend the Council apologise and make a payment to recognise the injustice caused. London Borough of Croydon (23 010 210)
Summary: There was fault by the Council as it wrongly told a care provider that a period of care would be reablement care. This meant the family received information from the Council that the care would be charged but the care provider said the care would be free. A payment towards the families uncertainty, along with a financial reassessment remedies the injustice caused. Shropshire Council (23 016 414)
Summary: We will not investigate Dr Xs complaint about the Councils handling of her mothers care charges. She says the Council failed to inform them of the outstanding debt and failed to communicate with her mothers solicitors. She also complains about the Councils decision to now pursue the debt, four years later. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Leeds City Council (23 016 789)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about being denied domestic abuse support. This is because the complaint was late and there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant our involvement. Warwickshire County Council (23 002 031)
Summary: Mr C complains the Council delayed in financially assessing his father, Mr D, for support in the community; and failed to consider payments made towards private physiotherapy as Disability Related Expenditure (DRE). The Council is at fault for taking over six months to complete a financial assessment. It is not however at fault for its decision making around DRE. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to reassess Mr Ds charge for the period May to November 2022. It had also taken action to limit delays in completing financial assessments. Manchester City Council (23 004 542)
Summary: Ms B complains about the Councils response to her request for a stairlift. We have identified fault in terms of delay in progressing the application and poor communication. We have not found fault in the way the Council decided to change the scope of the works. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (23 006 666)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils handling of Mr Xs hospital discharge. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. The Grange Care Centre (Cheltenham) Limited (23 013 400)
Summary: Mr C complains the Care Provider has inappropriately withheld Free Nursing Care (FNC) payments. The Care Provider is at fault for failing to have a clear contract which sets out what happens to a persons fees when FNC is awarded. The Care Provider is also at fault for delays and failures in its complaint handling. To remedy the complaint the Care Provider should apply FNC payments to the outstanding account, refund any credit and apologise to Mr C for its failures and make him a symbolic payment. Cornwall Council (23 015 312)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about his late mothers residential care charges. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Councils actions to justify an investigation. North Somerset Council (23 016 130)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards in adult social care. This is because there is no evidence of a significant injustice to justify our involvement, and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome as the Council is reviewing the matter. Somerset Council (23 016 941)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about the advice the Council gave Mr Y about the cost of attending a day centre. This is because the Council has taken appropriate steps to address the situation and we could not achieve anything further. Leeds City Council (23 017 252)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils decisions on disability related expenditure. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (23 017 285)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about faulty heating in a care home. That is because we could not add to the Councils investigation. Norfolk County Council (23 017 295)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils decision to treat Mrs C as depriving herself of an asset for the purpose of avoiding care costs. 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. Cornwall Council (23 017 643)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils late invoicing for outstanding care fees. The Council has accepted it was at fault for failing to set up an initial direct debit and delays in invoicing. It has apologised for this. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome. Surrey County Council (23 017 871)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint that the Council failed to find a suitable alternative care package to replace the service that was cancelled. He also complains the Council signposted him to inappropriate services. This is because the alleged faults have not caused any significant injustice. Hampshire County Council (22 003 638)
Summary: Mr F complained about long delays in arranging to discharge his daughter Miss D from hospital to a community placement, after she was detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. We did not find fault in most of the Council and Integrated Care Boards work to arrange Miss Ds discharge. We found fault by the Council in not sharing information about possible fire risk with a potential landlord. This fault is likely to have caused avoidable delay to Miss Ds discharge plans, which has caused her and her father frustration and distress. The Council has agreed to provide Miss D and Mr F with a financial remedy, and to take action to prevent similar problems happening in future. |
