| 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. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (23 013 310)
Summary: Mr X, a person with disabilities and complex needs, complained about the Councilâs response when he became homeless. The Councilâs housing team delayed helping him when he was being evicted from private rented accommodation. It then provided him with unsuitable interim accommodation, and at times left him with no accommodation. The Councilâs adult social care (ASC) team failed to ensure his care needs were fully recorded and did not work proactively with its housing team to ensure any housing provided would meet his assessed care needs. He did not receive any support for his care needs after the morning call on the day he was evicted and on another weekend when he had no accommodation. As a result of Council failings, Mr X was caused considerable stress and worry over many months before being evicted, had to sleep in his car for a weekend when the Council failed to provide housing, slept in his car for several weeks when it provided unsuitable accommodation and did not always receive his care package. Mr X said the lack of support with housing and his care needs adversely affected his mental and physical health, which meant he spent several weeks in hospital. Staffordshire County Council (23 018 780)
Summary: We investigated to see if there were flaws in the approach taken by the Council when a nursing home in its area faced potential closure. We found the Council at fault for not having a clearer procedure to follow in such circumstances. However, we did not consider this fault caused injustice to the residents affected. We therefore completed our investigation when the Council agreed to improve its procedure, as detailed at the end of the statement. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (24 004 676)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Councilâs charging for extra care housing. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Oxfordshire County Council (23 008 538)
Summary: Ms X complained about Oxfordshire County Council, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, and NHS Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West Integrated Care Board. She complained about faults relating to aftercare under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983. We have upheld Ms Xâs complaints about discharge, assessment, care planning and personal health budgets. We did not uphold the rest of Ms Xâs complaints. The organisations have accepted our recommendations, so we have completed our investigation. North East Lincolnshire Council (23 016 198)
Summary: there was a communications failure between Council departments which meant the decision of a Best Interest Meeting about Mr X was not properly disseminated. As a result, the Council did not share information which it could reasonably have done with Mr A and Ms B. The Council should apologise to Mr A and Mrs B and put things right going forward. Suffolk County Council (23 018 834)
Summary: Mrs D complained about the Councilâs actions when her husband Mr D went into a care home in 2023. We have found some fault which caused Mrs D distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay her £300 and improve its procedures for the future. London Borough of Newham (24 000 025)
Summary: We upheld Ms Xâs complaint. There was a delay in assessing her son Mr Yâs social care needs and her need for support in her caring role. There was also a delay in agreeing funding for a day centre placement. The outcome and recommendations of assessments were confusing. The Council will apologise, make payments and review Mr Yâs assessment and care and support plan. London Borough of Redbridge (24 003 636)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about charging for her motherâs respite care. This is because we could not add to the Councilâs own investigation. North Northamptonshire Council (24 003 999)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about her late motherâs care charges because the complaint is late. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (24 005 490)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision not to award a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. London Borough of Harrow (23 015 690)
Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the Councilâs response to Mr X. There is no reason why Mr X cannot access advocacy support. Leeds City Council (23 016 293)
Summary: Mr A complained the Council caused delays in implementing his care package. The Council agreed it caused a delay. We found the Council at fault, but it has offered an appropriate remedy. We have not therefore recommended that any further remedy is due. Westminster City Council (23 019 467)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council is failing to provide him with enough support to meet his care needs. There was a period in 2023 when the Council did not respond to Mr Xâs e-mails because they were going to a junk folder. The Council needs to apologise for the distress this caused. Leeds City Council (24 003 463)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about an adult social care financial assessment and the Councilâs decision that he deprived himself of assets to avoid care costs. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Warrington Council (22 016 144)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not properly gather and consider information during a safeguarding enquiry, and the Council concealed and obstructed his attempts to provide further evidence. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for how it managed communication with Mr X. However, the Council has already recognised and remedied this in its complaint response, and therefore no further remedy is warranted. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (23 011 709)
Summary: Miss X complained about the Councilâs management of her late motherâs (Mrs Y) charges for non-residential care. We identified one area of fault because the Council failed to confirm whether it intended to pursue Mrs Yâs estate for unpaid client contributions from 2019. This caused Miss X uncertainty and distress. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise and confirm its position about this matter in writing. We found no fault with the Councilâs response to more recent unpaid invoices. Hertfordshire County Council (23 017 457)
Summary: Mrs X complains about how the Council planned care for her son, Mr K. The Council took too long to start planning Mr Kâs transition from childrenâs services to adult social care. Despite its best efforts, the Council failed to provide overnight respite care and has not fully supported Mr Kâs mother to arrange this and use direct payments. The Councilâs shortcomings have caused Mr Kâs mother distress, uncertainty and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X, make a symbolic payment, and work with Mrs X to arrange respite care. Suffolk County Council (24 004 961)
Summary: Mr A has complained about a lack of attention to health and safety procedures by carers supplied by a council who were caring for his mother, Mrs B. We will not investigate this complaint as there is no evidence of fault on the part of the carers. Leicester City Council (24 006 368)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint that the Council wrongly contacted the Police when it was unable to contact him. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (22 014 239)
Summary: Mr B complained on behalf of Mr C, about failings in respect of his social care needs and housing situation. Mr C has been without care since January 2021 and his sister, Ms D has been his main carer. We found fault in the actions of the Council. It has agreed to apologise to Mr C and Ms D, make a symbolic payment to each of them, arrange a care act review and a housing meeting review and improve its procedures for the future. Leeds City Council (23 014 989)
Summary: Yhere was fault in the way the Council investigated a safeguarding concern relating to the provision of care by a care home. As a consequence, Mr and Mrs D will always have the uncertainty that the outcome of the enquiry could have been different if the fault had not occurred. The Council has agreed to apologise and to pay a small symbolic sum. Suffolk County Council (23 016 653)
Summary: Mr D complained the Council delayed completing a financial assessment for his mother. He also complained the Council delayed reviewing his stepfatherâs care and support needs. We find the Council was at fault for its delays in completing the financial assessment and its delays in reviewing Mr Dâs stepfatherâs care and support needs. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Hertfordshire County Council (23 021 392)
Summary: We have decided not to investigate Ms Xâs complaint about Ms Y paying more than she should for her adult social care. The Council has upheld the complaint and has agreed an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused. London Borough of Haringey (24 001 074)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about non-payment of fees for adult social care. It is a late complaint as Ms B has known of the issue since May 2022 and there is no good reason Ms B could not have complained sooner. Suffolk County Council (24 003 857)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision to reduce her care and support hours following a review completed in November 2023. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Miss X. |
