| 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. Leicester City Council (23 014 962)
Summary: Ms A has complained on behalf of a residential care home about a lack of funding by a council and an integrated care board for the increased support the care home provided to a resident. Ms A has also complained about a lack of safeguarding by the Council. We do not find fault with the Integrated Care Board. We find fault with the Council in relation to funding and safeguarding leading to a financial shortfall and increased risk for the Home. The Council has agreed to a financial remedy, apology and a reminder to staff as a satisfactory remedy. Promedica24 (Lancashire) Limited (23 015 135)
Summary: The ProMedica24 carer failed to seek medical attention promptly which caused Mr X to suffer more pain and distress than necessary; she also failed to communicate properly with his family about the wound. The care provider agrees the carer failed to report the injury and record it properly and offers to waive the charges for the days the carer did not work and offer £350 in recognition of the distress caused. It has also undertaken retraining as appropriate. London Borough of Wandsworth (23 019 057)
Summary: HOS found the Council has provided reasonable redress for Ms Xâs complaint regarding works to her kitchen. LGSCO did not find fault in how the Council assessed whether Ms Xâs property could be adapted to meet her needs. LGSCO found fault in how the Council decided Ms Xâs priority for rehousing in 2022. Both Ombudsmen found fault with the Councilâs complaint handling. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X, make payments, and act to improve its services. London Borough of Enfield (23 019 411)
Summary: We have ended our investigation into Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs actions relating to adapting a property for her son, Mr Y, to live in with the family. There is no worthwhile outcome that can be achieved by further investigation. We cannot achieve the remedy that Mrs X seeks and parts of her complaint are late. Gloucestershire County Council (24 000 660)
Summary: Mrs C complained about care and support the Council and Trust provided to her late sister, Ms D, and about how the organisations communicated with Ms Dâs family. We will not investigate Mrs Câs complaint, because it is unlikely we could add to the responses Mrs C has already received from the organisations she complains about. London Borough of Wandsworth (24 001 628)
Summary: HOS found the Council has provided reasonable redress for Ms Xâs complaint regarding works to her kitchen. LGSCO did not find fault in how the Council assessed whether Ms Xâs property could be adapted to meet her needs. LGSCO found fault in how the Council decided Ms Xâs priority for rehousing in 2022. Both Ombudsmen found fault with the Councilâs complaint handling. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X, make payments, and act to improve its services. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (24 002 514)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Council charging for the first six weeks of Mr Yâs care home stay because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Staffordshire County Council (24 003 325)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint that the Councilâs delays in carrying out her fatherâs financial assessment meant he was unable to make an informed decision about his placement. Any injustice is speculative so there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by an investigation. London Borough of Harrow (24 004 358)
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. Darlington Borough Council (23 008 327)
Summary: Mr X and his mother, Mrs Y, complained about the Councilâs failure to provide a personal budget that met his eligible care and support needs. We found the Council to be at fault. To remedy the injustice to Mr X and Mrs Y, the Council has agreed to apologise and refund the money paid by Mr X to attend day services back to when he was first charged. It will also take action to refund other services users who were similarly affected and make service improvements. Manchester City Council (23 011 109)
Summary: There was fault in the way the Council responded to a request to assess and support Mr C. There were delays in the Councilâs response, a failure to cooperate between the Councilâs different departments and a lack of proactive action from the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay a symbolic financial remedy, re-assess Mr C, hold a multi-disciplinary meeting and carry out a service improvement. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (23 011 152)
Summary: Ms D complains about faults by Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council and Calderdale & Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust in managing her mother, Mrs Xâs, discharge from hospital. We have upheld Ms Dâs complaints about assessing Mrs Xâs ability to make her own decisions, consent and sharing information about community nursing needs. We have not upheld the rest of the complaint. The Council and Trust accept our recommendations, so we have completed our investigation. Norfolk County Council (23 017 405)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with her request for a Care Act assessment. The Council has already apologised for delays in completing the assessment; that remedies any injustice caused. Hampshire County Council (23 019 099)
Summary: The Council has agreed to amend the date at which Mrs Xâs property value will be disregarded. I will not investigate this complaint further. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (24 003 908)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs refusal to renew his concessionary bus pass on the basis of a learning disability. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Hampshire County Council (24 005 088)
Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about care provided in a residential home. There is not a good reason for the delay in complaining and we could not carry out a meaningful investigation given the time that has passed since events. Westmorland and Furness Council (24 005 849)
Summary: The Ombudsman previously found fault in the actions of the Council and recommended a remedy which the Council agreed to deliver. Mrs B complains that, almost four months after the Ombudsmanâs decision was made, the Council had still not provided the agreed remedy. There was fault and the Council has agreed to deliver the remedy. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (23 009 985)
Summary: There was fault by the Council and a care home it commissioned: Mrs Y was deprived of her liberty without an authorisation, there was a failure to involve her attorney in a best interest meeting to decide on a new placement, a complaint response lacked detail and a private contract should not have been issued. This caused avoidable confusion, frustration and distress. The Council will apologise and make symbolic payments. It will also review procedures for assessing cases referred for deprivation of liberty assessments to ensure these take place within the required legal timeframes. Cheshire West & Chester Council (23 021 001)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council has paid Mrs X a direct payment rate lower than it would have paid a council contracted care provider for her care. I have ended my investigation because I cannot achieve a worthwhile outcome from further investigation as I am unlikely to be able to achieve the remedy Mr X wants. Surrey County Council (24 001 346)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about a meeting a Council officer had with her friend, Mr Y. This is because it is unlikely an investigation by this office could add to the response the Council has already provided via its own investigation of the matter. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (24 003 509)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs handling of several matters in relation to his daughterâs care and support. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the faults accepted have not caused any significant injustice and an investigation would not lead to any further outcomes. Buckinghamshire Council (23 007 967)
Summary: We consider Buckinghamshire County Council and Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust were not at fault for the delay discharging Mr P from hospital. However, the Council did not appropriately update Mr Pâs care and support plan following its assessment. While that did not cause Mr P an injustice, the Council should take action to reduce any potential impact on others. London Borough of Haringey (23 014 849)
Summary: Mr S and Ms M complained the Council mishandled a safeguarding referral, failed to fully respond to a complaint and failed to complete a carer's assessment, causing distress. The Council is not at fault for how it handled the safeguarding enquiry, the complaint response, and carers assessment. It is at fault for delay in responding to the complaint. Runwood Homes Limited (23 016 433)
Summary: Mrs S complained about the care provided to her husband by Runwood Care Homes. We found the Care Home at fault. The Care Home has agreed to apologise to Mrs S and make improvements to avoid a repeat of the fault identified. London Borough of Hounslow (23 016 710)
Summary: There is no fault by the Council. It is willing to assess Ms X and to do this it needs her consent to an assessment for social care support. We have not investigated a complaint about data protection because the Information Commissioner is best placed to deal with it. Care UK Community Partnerships Limited (23 016 919)
Summary: We upheld complaints about mouthcare and spectacles. The Care Provider accepted our recommendations to apologise and make changes to record-keeping. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (23 018 987)
Summary: Miss X complained about the Councilâs decision to refuse her blue badge renewal application. She said the Council did not properly consider her medical evidence from a psychologist, and was over reliant on a short telephone assessment from its own medical advisor. The Council was at fault for not sending all Miss Xâs medical evidence to its expert assessor. The Council offered to reassess Miss X to remedy the injustice. Suffolk County Council (23 019 114)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the decision to detain him under the Mental Health Act, or about how he was interviewed during the assessment. This is because it was reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the mental health tribunal about the decision, and because it is unlikely we would add to the response he has already received about the assessment. Birmingham City Council (23 020 970)
Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her mother, Mrs Y, that the Council did not provide enough information about the costs of Mrs Yâs care to enable her to make an informed decision. We discontinued our investigation because the Council re-considered the complaint and offered a suitable remedy for the injustice. London Borough of Hounslow (23 009 592)
Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council decided not to pay her a yearâs worth of direct payments it agreed she needed. There was fault there was fault in how the Council managed Ms Xâs direct payments. This caused Ms X a financial loss and significant distress. The Council agreed to apologise, pay Ms X the outstanding payments and a further financial remedy. It also agreed to review the information it provides about direct payments and how its social care and direct payment teams work together. Wokingham Borough Council (23 016 622)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Council not sharing relevant information with care homes when sourcing a placement for her father. She says this led to care homes that were unsuitable offering him a place and forced the family to pay a top up fee to enable her father to attend the familyâs preferred care home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Leeds City Council (23 020 858)
Summary: There is no fault by the Council. Mr X says that his late mother agreed before she went in a care home that some of her savings could be used for work to her house and as the Council hasnât allowed this, it has caused a financial injustice. The Council could not consider the intended future use of savings when carrying out a financial assessment for care home costs. London Borough of Southwark (24 003 720)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision to decline his blue badge application and about delay in it completing a reassessment. This is because the alleged fault has not caused any significant injustice. In addition, an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes. |
