| 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. Brighton & Hove City Council (23 010 078)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs assessment of Ms Xâs financial contribution to the cost of her non-residential care. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Walfinch Reigate & Horsham (23 015 779)
Summary: We uphold Ms Xâs complaints about timing of care calls, continuity of care staff and ending the contract. This caused avoidable distress. The Care Provider has already apologised and this is a partial remedy. We recommend a further apology and a symbolic payment for poor communication around ending the contract. Hampshire County Council (23 015 999)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision to place Mrs X in a care home or about the care she received there. There is not enough evidence of fault with the care for us to investigate and we are unlikely to achieve more by investigating the complaints about the placement in the care home. Leicestershire County Council (24 002 382)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay issuing a refund for overpayment of adult social care fees. This is because the Council has accepted its fault, apologised for the impact on the complainant, and acted to prevent future failures. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would add anything to the Councilâs investigation or achieve anything further. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken to resolve the complaint. Dorset Council (23 004 865)
Summary: There was fault as the Council did not invite Ms B to its Care Act assessment of her relative, Mr C. The Council continued to pay Mr Câs care home fees for several months, even though Mr C was a self-funder. This meant that Ms B then received a large invoice which had to be paid immediately. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a small payment to Ms B to reflect the distress caused by the fault. Trafford Council (23 008 803)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council issued a care plan for his father, Mr F, with more care than he needed at a significant cost which it did not explain. Mr X said his father would not have agreed to the care plan if the Council had told him the cost, especially as he could manage with less care. The Ombudsman found the Council followed procedure when it drafted the care plans and assessed Mr Fâs finances but is at fault for failing to communicate this effectively. Essex County Council (23 015 065)
Summary: Mrs B complained the Council has refused to allow Ms C to have direct payments to commission her own care services. She also complained the Council has offered an inadequate care package that will not meet Ms Câs care and support needs. We do not find the Council was at fault. Dorset Council (24 002 324)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failures in adult social care support and funding during Mr Câs lifetime. The complainant has known about the issues for more than twelve months, and there is no good reason he could not have complained to the Ombudsman sooner. Kent County Council (24 002 570)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about his sonâs day placement not having a talk/call box. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the alleged fault has not caused any significant injustice. Kent County Council (23 012 217)
Summary: There was delay in revising Mr Yâs care and support plan after a review in April 2023 and a change of placement in August and a failure to complete a mental capacity assessment in line with the Code of Practice to the Mental Capacity Act. This caused avoidable confusion. There was also a failure to discuss the complaint with Ms X and to discuss Mr Yâs concerns about CCTV with him causing avoidable distress. The Council will apologise and complete a mental capacity assessment of Mr Yâs ability to make decisions around his care and support. London Borough of Merton (24 001 723)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about how the Council met her relative, Ms Yâs, care and support needs prior to her death. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. City of Wolverhampton Council (24 002 541)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the outcome of a disabled facilities grant application. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to justify our involvement. Derbyshire County Council (24 000 239)
Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Councilâs involvement in Ms Yâs move into a care home. There is not a good reason for the delay in the matter being brought to the Ombudsman. Kent County Council (23 012 780)
Summary: Ms F complained that her mother was wrongly charged a contribution to her residential care fees from 2002 to 2021 when she was entitled to free mental health aftercare. She also complained that the Council had not explained how it had calculated the refund or whether it had included interest. The Council has accepted fault, sent its calculations and has offered to make an interest payment and payment to remedy distress. I am satisfied this remedies the injustice caused. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (23 018 576)
Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision that Mr X was ineligible for a Blue Badge. There was a delay in considering Mr Xâs appeal against the refusal which caused additional anxiety for Mr X which the Council will now acknowledge. Reading Borough Council (23 019 221)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council refused to give her direct payments to pay her partner to provide her social care at home. The Council was not at fault in how it decided it would not agree to the direct payments. However, the Council was at fault for delay in creating and issuing Mrs Xâs care and support plan. This caused her avoidable frustration for which the Council will apologise. Lancashire County Council (23 020 094)
Summary: We have decided not to investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs failure to provide appropriate information about the cost of his wifeâs care. The Council has now upheld the complaint and agreed to remedy the avoidable stress and missed opportunity to make an informed decision about whether to make changes to the care package. It has also agreed to provide guidance to staff to improve its services in future. Derby City Council (24 000 526)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a forthcoming care assessment and the complainantâs perception this will not be adequate. This is because the care assessment has not yet been carried out and so any injustice to the complainant is speculative. There is insufficient evidence of the complainant being caused serious loss, harm or distress. Durham County Council (24 002 213)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about funding for adult social care. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. It is unlikely the Ombudsman could add to the Councilâs investigation or reach a different outcome. Ridgeway Rise Care Limited (24 002 297)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in refunding overpaid care fees. The interest claimed on a one-month delay would not be significant to justify the Ombudsman investigating. Warrington Council (24 002 530)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to increase the amount the complainant receives to pay for his social care. This is because the Council has proposed a care review in response to the request. This is reasonably required to consider any changes to a personâs personal budget and care plan. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant our involvement. Oxfordshire County Council (23 014 767)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council had not acted in line with the Care Act 2014 and the did not allow flexibility and innovation in the use of direct payments to meet the needs set out in her son, Mr Gâs care and support plan. There was no fault in how the Council considered the use of direct payments. The Council delayed in completing a review of Mr Gâs needs, but this did not cause an injustice. Oxfordshire County Council (23 014 133)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the treatment and care provided to her late grandmother, Mrs Y while she was living in a nursing home. We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint because it is unlikely we could add to the responses she has already received from the organisations she complains about. Bath and North East Somerset Council (22 017 440)
Summary: We uphold Miss Yâs complaint about her fatherâs hospital discharge and care. We found fault with the way Mr X was discharged from hospital, the care he received in a care home and some aspects of his hospital inpatient care. As a result, Mr X did not receive the care he was entitled to. Miss Y has also experienced distress and uncertainty. The Council and the Trust have agreed to apologise to Miss Y, and the Council has agreed to make systemic improvements and pay a financial remedy. | 