| 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. The Grange Care Centre (Cheltenham) Limited (23 013 400, report)
Summary: The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman investigated a complaint about the Grange Care Centre (Cheltenham) Limited withholding fees for the care provided to the complainantâs late mother. The woman paid her fees in full, before NHS-funded nursing care payments (FNC) were awarded retrospectively. We found the care provider: had no clear contract setting out what happens when a person is awarded FNC; did not provide a statement of account for money it still held; increased care fees to include the FNC without notice; and did not respond properly to the complaints. This leaves the womanâs estate out of pocket for payments made before NHS funding was applied. Nottingham City Council (24 007 215)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Council inappropriately applying its NHS standard contract when placing residents within his nursing home. This is because there is an alternative legal remedy available. London Borough of Wandsworth (24 007 419)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how to meet adult social care needs when the current provision ends. The court of protection is better placed to settle a dispute about how best to meet a personâs needs when they do not have capacity to decide. The claimed injustice is future and speculative and so there is no worthwhile outcome to achieve from an Ombudsman investigation. London Borough of Harrow (24 007 463)
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. Leeds City Council (24 007 630)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs knowledge on the Nearest Relative under the Mental Health Act, and how it treated the Nearest Relative when their relative was in mental health crisis. The Council has apologised to the complainant for the distress it caused and has committed to training relevant staff. We are satisfied with the Councilâs actions; it is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would reach a different outcome. Leeds City Council (23 019 790)
Summary: Mrs X complained about issues with the Councilâs transport services for her sibling. The Council accepted it was at fault and put forward a number of remedies. It has agreed to carry them out to remedy the injustice caused. Suffolk County Council (24 006 647)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision to reduce her direct payments. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. London Borough of Harrow (24 007 972)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Councilâs refusal to renew her Blue Badge. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Warwickshire County Council (24 008 230)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision to refuse her a Blue Badge. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Essex County Council (24 009 238)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge. This is because the Council has now awarded a badge. Hampshire County Council (23 017 135)
Summary: There was fault as there was a delay in the financial assessment and the Council delayed informing Mr and Mrs B what Mr Bâs financial contribution to the care package cost would be. The Council also failed to send Mr and Mrs B a copy of the assessment and care plan. The Council has already reduced its invoice so the financial injustice has been addressed. The Council has also agreed to apologise and to carry out a service improvement. Horizon Senior Living Ltd (24 000 479)
Summary: Mr X complained the care provider failed to refund care home fees, paid in advance, after it refused to allow his late relative Mrs Y to return to the care home. The care provider was at fault causing injustice. Its contract terms and conditions were not in line with the Competition and Markets Authority guidelines as it failed to address what would happen to fees if a residentâs needs changed. This meant it charged Mrs Y for a room she was not able to use. To remedy the injustice the care provider has agreed to refund the fees paid by Mrs Y for January 2024 and amend its contract. Southampton City Council (24 001 037)
Summary: There was fault in the Councilâs actions as the Council failed to take all the appropriate action when an emergency call was made and did not let Mrs C know that it had called an ambulance for her mother. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy and carry out a service improvement. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (24 003 381)
Summary: Mr X complained about the Councilâs delay completing his Occupational Therapy assessment, and its poor communication. We find the Council at fault, which delayed Mr X receiving minor adaptations. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X. London Borough of Havering (24 007 680)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failures to support and protect a vulnerable adult. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault as nobody raised safeguarding concerns to the Council and no safeguarding concerns were obvious to Council officers. The Council has apologised to the complainant for failures in staffing and displaying contact numbers making it difficult for him to contact the Council in an emergency. The Council has acted to improve its future service. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would add to the Councilâs investigation or reach a different outcome. Broadland District Council (23 020 952)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council was at fault in the way it dealt with her application for a disabled facilities grant causing distress. We found fault because the Council delayed carrying out an assessment by an occupational therapist on Mrs X for her application. The Council has accepted it was at fault and already apologised to Mrs X for the delay which is suitable action for it to take. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it has assessed Mrs Xâs needs and drawn up proposals for adaptations at her property. So we have completed our investigation. Sheffield City Council (23 021 296)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not properly explain what he would have to pay for care he received following discharge from hospital. We found there were some missed opportunities and the Council made errors when initially completing the financial assessment. We recommended an apology and a modest payment to Mr X to reflect the impact these issues had. We found overall Mr X was advised there would be care charges and the care costs were payable. London Borough of Havering (24 000 603)
Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to properly consider her request for adaptations to be made to her council property. We cannot investigate the Councilâs actions as a registered social landlord. However, we found the Council was at fault for not considering a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). We recommended it apologised, supported Ms X to make a DFG application and then considered the application. We also recommended it corrected its policy. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (24 003 559)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about how the Council considered her motherâs care and support needs. There is not enough evidence of fault and the Council have already addressed the issues it needed to have done, so we could not add anything to its investigation. Westmorland and Furness Council (24 004 574)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Council charging her mother for care and support which was not needed. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. London Borough of Croydon (24 005 318)
Summary: We will not investigate a complaint about a how a Council made a Best Interest decision because there is not enough evidence of fault in the process if followed. Worcestershire County Council (24 006 044)
Summary: We have upheld Mr Xâs complaint on behalf of his son, Mr Y, about his adult social care support package. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by completing a review of Mr Yâs care and support plan. London Borough of Croydon (24 006 903)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint the Council completed an inadequate care assessment and decision to reduce her motherâs direct payments. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Northumberland County Council (24 007 425)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Council not buying them pain relief. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. London Borough of Southwark (24 007 617)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint that the Council has continuously sent him notices of payment, addressed to his late mother, for four years. This is because an investigation would not lead to any further outcomes as the Council has offered an appropriate remedy. Durham County Council (24 007 745)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a period of intermediate care and a subsequent invoice. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify us investigating the matter. London Borough of Waltham Forest (24 009 119)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Council not carrying out assessments in 2014. This is because the events happened too long ago for us to carry out a meaningful investigation now. Suffolk County Council (24 009 546)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about her late motherâs care charges. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to consider it now. Birmingham City Council (23 012 345)
Summary: Ms X, on behalf of her mother, Mrs Z, complained the Council failed to meet her care needs as it did not provide night-time care causing distress. The Council has not properly assessed whether Mrs Z has eligible night-time care needs and has provided contradictory information about what an additional five hours of direct payments were for. A suitable remedy is agreed. Leeds City Council (23 018 314)
Summary: the Council delayed contacting Mrs B about the funds from her late brotherâs estate, delayed providing a breakdown and provided incorrect calculations. The remedy the Council has already offered, plus an apology and payment to Mr C is satisfactory remedy. Buckinghamshire Council (24 000 842)
Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of his mother, Mrs Y, the Council has failed to take account of professionalsâ views when deciding the best care placement for Mrs Y. As a result, he says the Councilâs flawed decision making has left his mother without the care she needs. We have found fault in the Councilâs decision-making process, and it has agreed to make a financial payment to Mrs X and Mr Y and make service improvements. Cumberland Council (24 006 038)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a care worker and how it was investigated. This is because it is unlikely we could add to the care providerâs investigation or reach a different outcome. We also cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants; staff dismissal. Worcestershire County Council (24 006 744)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X complaint the Council failed to give her sufficient information about top up fees for her motherâs residential care placement. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the accepted fault has not caused any significant injustice. Trafford Council (24 007 968)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision to move Mrs X into a nursing home and its decision she was a full cost-payer. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Hampshire County Council (24 008 905)
Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Councilâs involvement in three of Ms Xâs family memberâs cases. It concerns historical matters that we could not fairly investigate now. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (22 011 148)
Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council dealt with safeguarding allegations involving his mother, Mrs Y. He complained the Council charged her for remaining in a care home while it completed the investigation. Mr X said the Council bullied him and made false allegations to the Office of the Public Guardian. He also complained about the Councilâs complaint handling. Mr X said this caused him distress. There was fault in the way the Council did not inform Mr X about the financial implications of the residential placement and delays in the complaint handling. This frustrated Mr X. The Council has already remedied this fault. London Borough of Croydon (23 014 682)
Summary: Miss X complained about the Councilâs actions relating to the care of a late family member, Mr Y. We found fault because of poor communication from the Council and inadequate record keeping by a provider working on its behalf. We also found fault because the Council took too long to complete assessments for both Mr Y and Miss X, which led to linked delays in organising direct payments for Mr Yâs care. This caused Miss X avoidable frustration and distress. To remedy the injustice caused by this fault, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Miss X and provide reminders to relevant officers. Essex County Council (23 007 303)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information the Council shared with the Disclosure and Barring Service about the complainant in 2022. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons why we should exercise our discretion and investigate despite the passage of time. Durham County Council (23 019 438)
Summary: Mr C complains about the Councilâs care charges and increases in care to his brother. The Council is at fault for making changes to a support plan without clarifying the services provided, and providing wrong and delayed invoices. These faults have caused frustration, time, and trouble. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr C, make him a symbolic payment, and provide a detailed amended invoice. It will also make service improvements. Northumberland County Council (24 004 793)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about a leak from the bathroom funded by a Disabled Facilities Grant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 006 584)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councilâs decision not to consider his complaint whilst his sonâs case is being considered in ongoing court proceedings. City of Wolverhampton Council (24 007 735)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs refusal to carry out additional works to fix drainage problems which he says have been caused by works completed under a Disabled Facilities Grant. The courts are better placed to consider his complaint and we could not achieve the outcome he wants. London Borough of Camden (24 007 873)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs response to his Subject Access Request. This is because the Information Commissionerâs Office is better suited to consider the complaint. |
