A weekly update on adult social care complaint decisions

Summary: Mrs Y complained on behalf of her mother, Mrs X. Mrs Y complained about how the Council dealt with securing a residential care home for Mrs X and how it dealt with her care charges. There were some faults by the Council which caused injustice to Mrs Y. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: There was a year’s delay by the Council in arranging the financial affairs of a person without capacity when family members with power of attorney stood down. This was fault and caused unnecessary concern, time and trouble. The Council will apologise, progress the application for deputyship, keep Ms X informed and ensure expenses are reimbursed when the deputyship is in place. The complaint is upheld.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a request for ceiling lift hoist to support Mr X’s son. It is unlikely we would find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council not sourcing suitable carers for her when she needed help with showering. She says the carers did not hold enhanced disclosure and barring service clearance. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about quality of care and an incident in 2021, and the Council’s delay until 2023 in pursuing payment for outstanding care fees. There is not a good reason for the delay in the events of 2021 being brought to the Ombudsman. Investigation by us into later events would not achieve the outcome Ms X seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about charges for his mother’s care home stay because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement..

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council reduced her personal budget. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an application for a Blue Badge because the Council is still considering the application.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about her son’s mental health care and support in 2019 and 2020 prior to his death. Her complaint to us was made outside our 12-month time limit and it would have been reasonable to complain to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a Care Provider because it is better dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council’s care provider, Reline Care, consistently failed to meet her needs, causing her significant distress. Based on the evidence seen so far, the care and support planning was poor and failed to explain how Ms X’s needs would be met by the support put in place. Reline Care did not update its own support plans and some of its support fell below the accepted standard. However, there is not enough evidence to say these faults caused injustice to Ms X which requires a remedy.

Summary: There is no evidence the actions of the care provider caused injustice to Ms A. There was a family dispute which care home staff sought to manage in the best interests of the late Mrs X, for whom they had a caring responsibility.

Summary: Mr F complains about the homecare provided to his mother and that the Council referred him to the office of the public guardian. We found no fault.

Summary: Mr & Mrs X complain the Council is failing to meet their needs as carers for their two children. The Council accepts it did not give Mrs X four weeks’ notice before reducing her carer’s personal budget. The Council needs to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs X for the distress this caused. The Council was not at fault over the way it assessed Mr & Mrs X’s needs as carers. It has been open to them to work with the Council to agree support plans which meet their needs.

Summary: There was no fault in how the Council considered Mr B’s blue badge application. Although it disregarded some evidence, it has fully explained why it did so. In the absence of any fault in the Council’s decision-making, we have no power to question the decision itself.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council closing his care account. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to issue his son a free bus pass. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an occupational therapy assessment for adult social care. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the process the Council followed to decide how to meet Ms B’s needs. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s investigation or reach a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr Y’s death from choking in a care home. We could not achieve a meaningful outcome as we could not say care staff were responsible for Mr Y’s death. It remains open to Mr X to pursue civil proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about privately arranged care at home. It is unlikely we can add to investigations already taken place or achieve a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council revoking its agreement to pay for Mrs Y’s care. There is not a good reason for the delay in the matter being brought to the Ombudsman.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her blue badge application. She says the Council delayed in processing her application. This is because the potential fault has not caused significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s responses to Mr X’s concerns about his late father’s care. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s response.

Summary: The care provider was at significant fault in the way it failed to provide a good standard of care and treatment for the late Mr X, and to maintain proper records about his care. The care provider has made service improvements since the events which took place here and offered a fee reduction to recognise the distress caused. The care provider agrees to offer an additional sum and provide full details of the service improvements it says it has put in place.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council took too long to put his support in place and started charging him for his support long before he received it. The delay in arranging Mr X’s support and charging him for it before it started caused avoidable distress to Mr X. The Council needs to apologise for these faults and pay financial redress.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council managed his adult son, Mr Y’s care needs, assessed his capacity to make decisions about his care and supported him and Mr Y’s mother as Mr Y’s carers. The Council delayed in resolving concerns about Mr Y’s capacity, failed to issue an up-to-date carer’s support plan and did not ensure Mr Y’s care needs were met. This caused Mr Y uncertainty and meant Mr and Mrs X had to provide additional care without appropriate support. The Council will apologise for the injustice caused, make symbolic payments to Mr Y and Mr and Mrs X and take action to resolve its concerns about Mr Y’s capacity.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council overcharged for her mother, Mrs Y’s care package, delayed pursuing unpaid invoices and failed to issue amended invoices even after she complained. The Council charged Mrs Y for more care than she needed and delayed issuing revised invoices following Miss X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to acknowledge the distress and frustration caused and issue revised invoices.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to allow a 12-week property disregard when completing his father's financial assessment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mx Y’s complaint about how the Council completed a review of their adult social care needs. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delay in the Council completing a financial assessment for his wife. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the safeguarding enquiries completed by the Council. He says the investigations were completed internally and was not independent. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to reduce the day centre support Mr Z receives. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about residential care arranged by the Council. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by an Ombudsman investigation. The complainant wants access to information, the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider this issue.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decisions or its assessments about Mrs Y’s care and support needs. This is because the matter is being considered by the Court of Protection and the law will not allow us to consider a complaint where court action has already started.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council withheld information from him about his mother’s, Mrs Q’s care. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an application for a Blue Badge because the Council has agreed to reconsider the application.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding and failing to communicate with the complainant. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. The person receiving care support has capacity to make their own decisions about their care. The Council is not making the decisions or excluding the complainant. The Council has given a thorough written response to the concerns, and it is unlikely we would achieve anything further.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council completed a care needs assessment. That is because the complaint is late.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his care placement. He says he is unhappy living there due to problems with another resident and the care provider. Mr X also complains the Council is ignoring his request to move. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in responding to the elderly alarm service. We could not add to the Council’s investigation or reach a worthwhile outcome. We are satisfied with the actions the Council took to acknowledge the distress caused by failures in its complaint handling.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s provision of information about care charges. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council decided what to include in a Disabled Facilities Grant to adapt his father, Mr Y’s, home to meet his needs. The Council was at fault for not including making two doorways wider in its list of works. We cannot investigate much of the rest of the complaint because Mr X complained to us too late.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged failure by the Council to properly assess or meet the complainant’s adult social care needs. The Council has properly considered the complainants’ needs in accordance with the principals of the Care Act 2014 and its related statutory guidance. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council failing to provide appropriate care provision to him and for refusing his request for direct payments to allow him to employ his brother as his personal assistant. This is because some complaint matters are late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about where Ms C’s adult social care needs should be met. The Court of Protection is better placed to decide such a dispute. It is stressful that Ms C may have to move, but there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that she has received no support from the community occupational therapy team and that the Council has prevented her from moving to a more suitable property.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint that the Council wrongly charged Mrs X for her care, did not consider or respond to Mrs Y’s explanation that Mrs X was eligible for Section 117 aftercare, and delayed carrying out a reassessment of Mrs X’s needs. The Council has upheld Mrs Y’s complaint and remedied the injustice by apologising and providing a financial remedy. The Council has also taken action to improve services. It is unlikely we could add to this response for Mrs X and Mrs Y by investigating the complaint.