| 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. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (23 010 008)
Summary: We found fault in the Councilâs failure to consider the complaint about the withdrawal of support from the complainantâs (Mr X) daughters (Miss C and Miss D). The Councilâs fault caused injustice to Mr X and his wife (Mrs X) as they had no opportunity to have their concerns investigated. The Council agreed to apologise and to consider Mr Xâs complaint. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 012 167)
Summary: Mrs F complained on behalf of her late husband about the care he received in Charlton Court Care Home (operated by Akari Care), which was arranged and funded by the Council. We found fault which caused distress and uncertainty to Mrs F. The Council will apologise and make a payment to remedy this injustice. It will also review procedures at the care home. Essex County Council (23 016 382)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to deal properly with the payments for his late motherâs care. He says this resulted in it failing to accept the need to refund money to her estate to reflect the fact she had to pay more for her care herself because the Council did not pay enough money into her direct payment account. The evidence shows there has been no fault by the Council. Surrey County Council (24 000 531)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a best interests decision made by the Council. That is because it would be reasonable to refer the matter to the Court of Protection. Birmingham City Council (24 001 295)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint, made on behalf of Mrs Y, about a care firm commissioned by the Council breaking Mrs Yâs tap, ending its delivery of Mrs Yâs care package without explanation, and how the firm and Council dealt with her complaint. Investigation would achieve no different outcome on the core property damage issue. There is not enough evidence of fault in the firm ending its provision of Mrs Yâs care package and not giving an explanation to warrant investigation. We do not investigate complaintâhandling processes where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint. Lancashire County Council (24 001 700)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Direct Payments. The Council has apologised for any delay in setting these up. It has also backdated the Direct Payments. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (23 008 737)
Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council arranged care for his late mother Mrs Y and how it dealt with him as her main carer and Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA). There was no fault in the way the Council assessed Mrs Yâs needs, in the advice given to Mr X or in the way it discussed finances with Mrs Y. The Council was at fault for failing to involve Mr X when Mrs Y was initially discharged home and there was a delay in the Council commissioned care home starting Mrs Yâs exercises. This caused Mr X distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, remind officers of the need to involve carers in needs assessments and to ensure the care home properly considers Council support plans in its assessment of residentâs needs. Cornwall Council (23 013 942)
Summary: Mr B complains the Council has failed to meet his daughterâs need for respite care, leaving him as her full-time carer and without a break. The Council has failed to provide his daughter with enough support to make informed decision about how her needs should be met. The Council needs to apologise, make a symbolic payment to Mr B and ensure his daughter receives the support she needs. London Borough of Haringey (23 014 223)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly charged his mother, Mrs Y, for a period of reablement care which should have been free for up to six weeks. We found fault by the Council for charging Mrs Y for this care. The Council agreed to remove the charges for this period, apologise to Mr X and Mrs Y and make them a symbolic payment in recognition of the avoidable worry and time and trouble caused to them. Bristol City Council (23 015 920)
Summary: Ms C complains about the Councilâs failure to provide suitable services to her son. The matter is waiting for a hearing at the Court of Protection. The Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints where the matters complained of are not separable from court proceedings. As the matters complained about appear to be the same as those waiting the attention of the Court of Protection we will not investigate this complaint. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (23 017 514)
Summary: There is no evidence the Council failed to take all relevant information into account when it decided not to award a Blue Badge. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (23 020 548)
Summary: Mr A has complained about a care agency and a Council after an investigation by the care agency into a pill found by carers at Ms Bâs house. He said the investigation was inadequate and resulted in the care agency withdrawing care to Ms B. We did not investigate this case as we could not achieve more than what has already been achieved by the care agencyâs investigation. Creative Support Ltd (23 020 548a)
Summary: Mr A has complained about a care agency and a Council after an investigation by the care agency into a pill found by carers at Ms Bâs house. He said the investigation was inadequate and resulted in the care agency withdrawing care to Ms B. We did not investigate this case as we could not achieve more than what has already been achieved by the care agencyâs investigation. Kent County Council (24 001 319)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs refusal to investigate safeguarding concerns Mr X raised. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Councilâs actions and how it came to its decision the matters were not for the safeguarding process. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 007 816)
Summary: Mrs D complains about the way the Council and the Health Collaboration dealt with her when she complained about care provided to her late mother. We will not investigate this complaint because both organisations have already admitted fault in how they dealt with Mrs D and apologised. The Health Collaboration has also made changes to ensure these faults do not happen again. Further investigation by the Ombudsmen would not achieve anything more. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (24 001 060)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged neglect in a care home. The local Safeguarding Adults Board is completing a Safeguarding Adults Review into the care provider, it is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would add anything further. London Borough of Croydon (24 001 119)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an email a Care Provider sent the Council. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. London Borough of Lewisham (24 001 186)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a request for information. It is open to Mr X to make a request directly to the organisation that produces the report in question, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. If the organisation refuses the request, the Information Commissionerâs Office is best placed to consider the matter. London Borough of Enfield (24 001 811)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs refusal to move a key safe that has been installed outside his bedroom wall. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Gloucestershire County Council (23 012 707)
Summary: Mrs X complained about contact restrictions between her relative Ms Y and Ms Yâs mother Mrs Z which the Council continued to impose after Ms Y left a care home. The Council was at fault for failing to clarify the nature of the restrictions and the actions needed to remove them. This caused Mrs X and Mrs Z frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and take action to prevent recurrence of the fault. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (23 012 834)
Summary: The Council acknowledged a delay in Mrs Y receiving rehabilitation services during her stay in nursing home before the complaint came to this office, and waived care fees for five months. Any further investigation by this office could achieve no more. Shropshire Council (23 013 938)
Summary: Ms Y did not receive oral care in line with her care plan and her family were given inaccurate information that changes to one of her medicines had been made, when the GP had not made changes. This was fault causing her family avoidable distress and the Council should apologise. There was fault in Ms Yâs personal care, but action has already been taken to remedy the injustice. We do not uphold complaints about actions taken after a fall, one-to-one care, support to go to bed or actions taken in response to weight loss. Surrey County Council (23 020 389)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint the Council failed to fund a placement for him at a specific care home. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Shropshire Council (24 001 299)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs assessment and charging of Mr X as further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Cambridge City Council (24 001 524)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs refusal to pay to correct problems with a flat roof installed at Mr Xâs property in 2017 under a disabled facilities grant. We cannot establish whether the Council is liable to pay for the repairs as demanded by the complainant. If the complainant believes the Council is liable for the cost of the repairs, it is reasonable to expect him to make a claim on the Councilâs insurance. If they deny liability Mr X can ask the Courts to decide whether the Council to pay to repair the defects to Mr Xâs roof. Essex County Council (23 005 130)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs calculation of charges for care and support or the information it has provided the complainant or her representative about the matter. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, or of its actions causing Miss K significant injustice, or of us being likely to achieve a different result for her so the matter does not warrant investigation. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (23 007 683)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaints about his care plan and support because we have already investigated them. We will also not investigate Mr Xâs complaint that he was unable to speak to his named adviser when he telephoned the Councilâs automated line. The Council has resolved the matter. Further investigation would achieve nothing more. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (23 009 036)
Summary: We have upheld one of Ms Xâs complaints about a failure to ensure one of her husbandâs medicines was re-supplied. There was also poor-record-keeping in relation to the support Mr X required at hospital appointments. Mrs X has already had an apology from the Care Home which acted on behalf of the Council. We do not uphold complaints about a failure to understand Mr Xâs needs, to obtain medicine for a skin condition or about poor communication. The Care Home has already taken appropriate action to remedy the injustice. Surrey County Council (23 011 673)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council misled him about the support hours Ms Y would receive following her move to an assisted living facility. We find the Council at fault for giving incorrect information to Mr X. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the uncertainty caused. Herefordshire Council (23 013 891)
Summary: Miss X complains the Council did not properly provide adult social care for her father. The Council is at fault because it did not seek consent concerning staff being accompanied and it did not communicate properly about Occupational Therapy services. Miss X and Mr Y were unable to object to additional staff and left uncertain when actions were going to be taken. The Council should apologise and provide guidance to staff. Buckinghamshire Council (23 014 564)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council reduced her mother, Mrs Yâs, direct payment after earlier agreeing a higher amount. This was after Mrs X had already sourced a care provider that was providing care to Mrs Y. The care providerâs charges were more than the new direct payment amount, so the Council said a top-up fee would apply. We found the Council was at fault for failing to perform due diligence setting up a direct payment agreement. However, the Council does not have a duty to pay a privately sourced care providerâs full costs where it can meet a personâs needs more cost effectively. The remedy offered by the Council is suitable for the injustice caused. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (23 014 984)
Summary: Mrs Z, on behalf of her father Mr X, complained the Councilâs needs assessment failed to identify all his eligible needs and it delayed in completing a financial assessment which prevented her father making an informed decision and he now owes a debt of approximately £5,000. The Council accepts it delayed completing the financial assessment and has already provided a suitable remedy for the injustice caused. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (24 001 204)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Councilâs handling of her motherâs request for a level access shower. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement. London Borough of Wandsworth (24 001 554)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an organisationâs compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty. The matter complained about is not an administrative function of the Council and is therefore not within the Ombudsmanâs jurisdiction. East Sussex County Council (24 001 558)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint the Council has not dealt with his complaint about adult safeguarding. The Council is waiting for court proceedings to conclude before investigating. There is not enough evidence of fault in how it reached that decision to justify our involvement. Sheffield City Council (24 002 216)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the refusal of a disabled facilities grant. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement and part of the complaint is late. London Borough of Islington (24 002 223)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision on the suitability of its mobility training. This is because we are unlikely to find fault with its decision making. East Sussex County Council (24 002 301)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision to no longer hold a restorative justice meeting. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision. There also is not enough evidence of a significant injustice to justify an investigation, because the Council is still offering to meet with the victim to hear her voice about how its actions impacted her. The meeting would still include an independent facilitator, but not the individual officers whose actions caused the impact. |
