| 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. Blackpool Borough Council (24 006 183)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an adult social care best interest decision. It is unlikely we will find evidence of procedural fault; the information available implies the Council followed the correct process. But even if there was fault, we cannot achieve a worthwhile outcome as the person affected has since died. Mr Simon Dickinson and Mrs Christine Dickinson (24 008 061)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the care providerâs actions. This is because we are unable to carry out an effective investigation into the matters raised without the consent of the care home resident involved. Cornwall Council (24 009 431)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs assessment of her late motherâs adult social care fees. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with the Councilâs decision to include a mobile home in its assessment and because we cannot add to the Councilâs investigation into delays informing Mrs X about the charges and her right of appeal. Manchester City Council (23 014 526)
Summary: Although the Council did as much as it could to find respite care to help Miss X look after her disabled son, it nonetheless failed to deliver the service â for which it was at fault. Miss X was without all the support she needed, which caused her an injustice. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment to her which recognises this. It has also taken steps to improve its service. Sheffield City Council (23 015 273)
Summary: Mrs Y complains about how the Council dealt with her motherâs National Health Service(NHS) joint package of health and social care and her care charges. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mrs X and Mrs Y. The Council has agreed to remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Mrs Y. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (23 020 135)
Summary: The Council accepted a care agency, acting on its behalf, failed to manage failed to Mr Yâs medication safely and that there were errors in care records, however, it failed to offer a remedy for injustice caused. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (24 000 559)
Summary: We found fault in the Councilâs failure to apply to the Court of Protection about care arrangements for the complainantâs (Mr X) son (Mr Z). The Councilâs fault caused injustice to Mr Z and Mr X. We did not find fault in the Councilâs visiting arrangements. We will not investigate whether the Supported Living placement was suitable for Mr Z and Mr Xâs complaint about the Supported Living placement manager. The Council agreed to apologise, to apply to the Court of Protection and to make a symbolic payment for Mr Xâs distress. The Council also agreed to remind social workers of their duties for people who lack mental capacity and are placed in the supported living settings. Meadway Court (24 001 871)
Summary: We find the Care Provider at fault for invoicing Mr B for his motherâs care without first making checks about her circumstances. However, the Care Provider later recognised its error and apologised to Mr B. It then went on to say it would no longer ask him to pay the invoice. We did not consider we could achieve a better outcome for Mr B. This was because we could only have conducted a limited investigation, given the passage of time since Mr Bâs mother was in the Care Providerâs care. Devon County Council (24 003 469)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council has not dealt properly with her adult social care. The Council is at fault because there was delay in completing a needs assessment review, finalising a care plan and personal budget, and implementing care. Miss X suffered uncertainty, distress, and missed care provision. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Miss X £850 for frustration, uncertainty and distress due to delays. Essex County Council (24 000 170)
Summary: Mrs B complained the Council and the ICB failed to pay for her late motherâs, Mrs G, residential care home placement in line with the Mental Health Act 1983 after the family moved Mrs G to a care home. We found the Council took too long to review Mrs Gâs care and support arrangements after she left hospital and when she lived in the community. The Council acted to improve its processes and reminded its officers of completing reviews without delay. We did not find the delay to review Mrs Gâs care and support arrangements led to the claimed injustice that the Council and the ICB should have paid for her residential care costs in line with the Mental Health Act 1983 after her family moved her to the care home. Nottingham City Council (24 007 883)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about meeting adult social care needs. The complainant disagrees with the Councilâs decision to reduce a package of care. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision. So it is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would lead to a different outcome. Sanctuary Care Limited (24 008 511)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the care provision to her late mother Ms Y and how the care provider dealt with her complaint. An investigation by us would not add to the care providerâs investigation, nor result in a different outcome. There is insufficient unremedied injustice to Miss X to warrant an investigation. We cannot achieve the negligence finding she seeks. We do not investigate care providersâ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint. Warwickshire County Council (24 011 803)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about matters related to her late motherâs care. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to consider it now. Care UK Community Partnerships Limited (24 001 052)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the standard of care she received while staying at a care home. Mrs X said this caused her health to worsen. We have found the actions of the care provider caused injustice to Mrs X. To remedy the injustice caused the care provider agreed to apologise to Mrs X, make a payment to her to recognise the distress caused and carry out a service improvement. Cornwall Council (24 002 078)
Summary: Ms Q complained about the way the Council has dealt with her requests for disability related expenses for her child. We do not consider the Council is at fault so have not recommended any remedy. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (24 006 613)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about his belongings being stolen in 2019. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider it now. West Sussex County Council (24 007 994)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial assessment for adult social care costs, specifically how the Council considered disability related expenditure. This is because it is unlikely we would find evidence of fault in the Councilâs decision-making. The complainant has challenged the decision, and two senior officers with relevant experience have reviewed the original decision, taking account relevant law, guidance, and policy. Worcestershire County Council (24 008 081)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about quality of care in a care home and the Councilâs investigation of the matter. The Council accepts there was fault in its actions and those of the Care Provider it commissioned. It has apologised, and both it and the Care Provider have made service improvements. It has now agreed to take early action to recognise the outstanding injustice caused to Mr X and his mother, Mrs Y. It is not therefore proportionate to investigate the matter further. West Sussex County Council (24 008 123)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs communication or notification relating to its engagement with a self-advocacy group. It is unlikely we would find fault and there is no significant injustice. Kent County Council (23 018 857)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councilâs failure to properly consider her hidden disabilities when refusing her Blue Badge application. We found the Council to be at fault because it did not use the relevant assessment tool when making its initial decision. However, the personal injustice to Mrs X was limited because the Council corrected this mistake at the review stage. The Council has agreed with out recommendation to apologise to Mrs X and review its practices. The New Cyder Barn Limited (24 002 209)
Summary: Mr X complained about the poor care his mother received during her respite stay at the care home. The Ombudsman does not find fault. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (24 003 374)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has carried out a flawed Care Act assessment of her daughterâs (Y) needs. Mrs X says as a result her daughter did not get the level of care and support she needs which has caused distress and uncertainty. The Council was not at fault as it carried out the assessment in line with the Care Act. London Borough of Lambeth (24 008 029)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the way the Council interacts with him during its communication with him. This is because some of the issues he complains about are late and of the other matters that are not late, there is another body that would be better suited to look at his complaint, and there is otherwise no worthwhile outcome we can achieve. Devon County Council (24 009 179)
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. London Borough of Hillingdon (23 016 163)
Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council assessed his and his wife, Mrs Xâs, social care and support needs. There was no fault in how the Council proposed to assess Mrs Xâs needs. However, the Council has not properly explained how it decided how many hours a week Mr X cares for her. The Council agreed to review Mr Xâs support plan. London Borough of Hackney (24 004 207)
Summary: Ms A complains about the care provided to her sister at Bridgeside Lodge Care Home (the Care Home). We will not investigate this complaint because the Care Home is willing to reinvestigate. There is nothing more we can achieve by looking at the complaint before the Care Home completes its investigation. |
