A weekly update on adult social care complaint decisions

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council did not properly deal with a Blue Badge or taxi-card application properly. The Council is at fault because it delayed dealing with Mr Xs Blue Badge and taxi-card applications and did not make consistent reasonable adjustments. Mr X suffered avoidable distress and incurred time and trouble. The Council should apologise to Mr X, pay Mr X 200 for distress and 100 for time and trouble, provide guidance to staff, provide an action plan and refer to the Cabinet Member responsible.

Summary: the care provider did not provide an admission agreement or clarify the way in which Funded Nursing Care awards were applied (although there was no fault in the way FNC was applied). During its handling of Mrs Xs complaint, it suggested it would backdate an increased fee to the start of the placement. The care provider should apologise to Mrs X and confirm it will not pursue a backdated increase in fees between October 2022 (the start of the placement) and April 2023.

Summary: Mrs X complained about her adult son, Mr Ys, care plan, which she said was not fit for purpose. There was no fault in the Councils decision-making.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. This is because it is a late complaint. But even if it were not, the Ombudsman would not add to actions already taken to recognise the impact on the family and to improve future service. The person using the service has died so we can provide no personal remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about the Council charging her father for his care and support and about failing to consider her fathers expenses in his financial assessment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care provided to the late Mr B. This is because we could not add to the Care Providers response or make a different finding of the kind Mrs C wants. We could not now provide a remedy for any injustice caused by fault which might be uncovered during an investigation as sadly Mr B has passed away.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils Care Break Scheme. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement and the Councils actions have not caused the complainant a significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the completion of work under a Disabled Facilities Grant and lack of communication. The complainant has confirmed all work except concerns about water pressure has been resolved. The Council confirms the local water authority has an appointment to visit the complainant at home to resolve this remaining issue. We consider that further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Bs complaint about the Councils refusal to provide his mother-in-law Mrs C with care and support. This is because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault with the Councils actions to warrant an ombudsman investigation.

Summary: Mr A has complained about a Trust and a Council in relation to his fathers discharge from hospital. We found fault with the Trust but not the Council.

Summary: Mrs X complained CHJB Limited failed to provide the care it was contracted to provide to her mother, Mrs Y. The Care Provider is at fault because it did not properly record the care provided to Mrs Y on two occasions and did not provide her with a properly cooked meal on one occasion. This caused Mrs X uncertainty about the care received by Mrs Y and frustration. I am satisfied the Care Provider too appropriate action to deal with these matters before our investigation commenced. There is no outstanding injustice that requires remedy.

Summary: Ms C complains the Council inappropriately charged for residential care after her father died and the residential care it commissioned was inadequate. The Council is at fault for failing to respond to Ms C and there was service failure by the care home. This caused Ms C uncertainty and avoidable charges for care. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to waive some outstanding fees. It will also make Ms C a symbolic payment for the time, trouble and distress the Councils actions caused her. As part of its commissioning role the Council will also review the Care Providers recording.

London Borough of Barnet (23 011 972)

Summary: Ms D complained about the Councils decisions around her fathers care arrangements and its handling of her safeguarding concerns. We found no fault in the processes the Council followed to reach its views. It therefore reached decisions it was entitled to make. Also, parts of the safeguarding process are still ongoing and there are limits to the information the Council can share with Ms D.

Summary: Mr D complains the Councils financial assessment of his mother, Mrs D regarding care charges was incorrect because it did not take account of her disability related expenses, high outgoings, or her wellbeing. We have not found fault by the Council. .

Summary: We uphold a complaint about the Councils failure to act when Ms X asked for assistance with childcare and other support when she was receiving cancer treatment. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment and take action set out in this statement to minimise the chance of recurrence.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed in its duties to her under the Care Act 2014, as an adult with care and support needs. We have ended our investigation. The Ombudsman has already considered issues raised by Ms X previously. We do not consider Ms X is raising any new issues we should investigate. Our view is further investigation will not result in a finding of fault, or a different or worthwhile outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. This is because it is a late complaint. The issues were known about more than 12 months ago and there is no good reason they could not have been pursued sooner.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to support her with her direct payment account and incorrectly suspended her payments. We do not find fault in the way the Council supported Mrs X and the steps in its decision making to suspend Mrs Xs account and offer her commissioned care services. We therefore cannot question the merits of its decision.

Summary: Mr Gs daughter, Mrs T, complains the Council told Mr G that it would extend a six week care home placement for a further three weeks and that it would not charge him for this. She also complains about poor care at the home. There were failings in the care provided to Mr G by the care home. The Council has agreed our recommended remedy.

Summary: Mrs B says the Council failed to provide her with clear guidance about the disabled facilities grant process, failed to properly consider her needs, failed to take action when the works completed by the contractor are not fit for purpose and wrongly paid the contractor. There is no fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to provide satisfactory care to her uncle, Mr C. The Councils safeguarding enquiry found that acts of neglect and omission had occurred in Mr Cs care. This is fault, which caused Mr C injustice. We found the Council has not properly addressed the injustice caused to Mr C and Mrs B. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused to Mr C and Mrs B.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to meet his care and support needs and, despite agreeing to reassess them in January2024, it has failed to do so. The Council has delayed in reassessing Mr Xs needs. It needs to reassess his need for care and support under the Care Act 2014 without further delay.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in the Council considering and deciding her application for a blue badge. This is because an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care provided to the late Mrs B or way the Care Provider treated some of her family members. This is because further investigation could not add to the responses already received or make a different finding of the kind Mr C wants. We could not now provide Mrs B with a remedy for any injustice caused by fault which might be uncovered during an investigation as she has passed away.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged failure by the Council to refer the complainants late mother-in-law for an NHS Continuing Health Care assessment. This is because an assessment referral was already scheduled and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council for not making an earlier referral.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the standard of care Mr X has received. This is because the Council has conducted a satisfactory investigation and taken action to address Mr Xs concerns. An investigation would therefore be unlikely to result in a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about the Councils decision that he is not eligible for a blue badge. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. The Information Commissioners Office is better placed to consider a complaint about access to records.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils care provision to the late Ms X. This is because the complaint is late and an investigation would not achieve any worthwhile outcome.

Summary: Mr D complained about the Care Providers decision to change his fathers care fees without proper notification. We do not find the Care Providers actions caused Mr D an injustice.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Councils actions after she asked it for assistance with taking down an extension to her home. I am ending my investigation because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating this matter. Nor will I investigate Miss Xs complaint about how the Council helped with her sons care needs. Any fault there may have been has not caused a significant enough injustice to justify investigating and the Council has taken steps to address Miss Xs complaint about this.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council charges for care and support. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council with respect to its care and financial assessment of the complainant, or its charges.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils alleged failure to inform Mrs X that she would be responsible for Mr Xs care fees. This is because the complaint relates to events that took place more than 12 months ago and it would have been reasonable for her to bring the complaint to us at the time.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the quality of standards and care provided by the Care Provider to her mother which led her to remove her mother soon after moving in. We found the Care Provider acknowledged failings with some matters including the moving in experience. We did not consider there is significant injustice relating to her mothers care to warrant any further action or remedy.

Summary: Miss Y complains on behalf of her mother, Ms Z, about her experiences in a residential care home. We have discontinued our investigation into Miss Ys complaint because we do not consider she is a suitable representative for the complaint made.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the care received by her mother, Mrs Y, at Chiltern View Care Home, which is run by Benslow Management Company Limited (BMCL). We found, on the balance of probabilities, that Mrs Y did not always receive care of an acceptable standard prior to the introduction of service improvements by BMCL. BMCL agreed to apologise, reduce the outstanding balance of Mrs Ys care fees and make Mrs X a symbolic payment in recognition of the injustice caused.

Summary: A care home, acting on behalf of the Council, failed to properly communicate with Mrs X during an investigation into an alleged assault on her husband during his respite stay. The care home also delayed informing Mrs X of the outcome of the investigation. There is no evidence to support the allegation Mr X was abused, or that he received poor care.

Halton Borough Council (23 008 536)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Bs complaint about care and support provided to her late mother Mrs C. This is because we could not add to or make a different finding to that already provided to Mrs B by the Council. Mrs C is now deceased, so we could not provide her with a remedy for any injustice caused by fault which might be uncovered during an investigation.

Summary: Mr Y complains the Councils decision to restrict his contact directly interfered with his legal obligations as Lasting Power of Attorney. There is fault in some elements of the complaint which caused Mr Y some confusion and time and trouble. The Council will apologise and undertake the service improvements listed at the end of this statement.