A weekly update on adult social care complaint decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not completing an adult social care assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: Mr X complained about the standard of care delivered to his family member, Mr Y, by a provider acting on behalf of the Council. We found fault because the Council failed to act decisively to investigate Mr X’s complaint. This caused avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. To remedy the injustice caused by the fault, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to the family, issue reminders to relevant staff and review some of its processes.

Summary: The care provider did not apply the contract terms properly and has now agreed to refund the relevant notice period. The care provider has also now apologised to Mrs X for its handling of this matter and offered a sum recognising the time, trouble and distress she was caused in pursuing this.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delay with adaption works completed under a disabled facilities grant. He says this was caused by delayed payments. He also complains about the Council’s decision to partially refund him for the services of a surveyor which he considered unnecessary. 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: Mr X complains on behalf of his mother, Mrs Y. He says the care provider on behalf of the Council failed to communicate with the family and did not have any understanding of his mother’s needs. He also says it had unsafe practices. Mr X says the Council failed to respond to him when he raised a complaint. Mr X says this caused him and his family distress. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for failing to ensure the care provider could access Mrs Y’s property leading to missed medication and for failing to respond to Mr X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to issue an apology, pay a financial payment to Mr X and complete service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to end adult social care involvement. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s safeguarding investigation which may relate to Mrs X. The matter is currently ongoing, and we could not come to sound conclusions at this time. It is open to Mrs X to complain to us after investigations have reached a conclusion, if necessary.

Summary: Mr Y complained about the frequent changes in social worker and delays with progressing and supporting him to source appropriate long term accommodation for him. We found some fault in the Council’s actions causing injustice to Mr Y. However, we also note the complexity of Mr Y’s case and several factors affecting the Council’s ability to progress the case. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a debt Ms X said the Council owed to her organisation. It would be reasonable to expect Ms X to have pursued this debt through the civil courts.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s failure to support her son properly in the time leading up to his death. We have discontinued the investigation into this complaint, as the coroner will be holding an inquest into the son’s death, which is likely to consider similar issues to those Mrs X has complained to the Ombudsman about.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint she is not eligible for a Disabled Facilities Grant. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council sending demand notices for a debt related to his late father’s care charges. This is because an investigation would not lead to any further findings or worthwhile outcomes.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X complaint about the invoices the Council sent her regarding her son’s care and support charges and the Council’s failure to provide a breakdown of the charges. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs Y’s care in a care home. We could not achieve a worthwhile or meaningful outcome by investigating the matter further.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to refund her for the period her husband did not use the services of his care provider. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not taking any action against an individual he believes is using a blue badge fraudulently. This is because the claimed fault has not caused him any injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an adult social care needs assessment and a failure to provide required support. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about missing documents to decide the funding of adult social care. We cannot know if there is a financial injustice until the Council completes the financial assessment. To enable that, the complainant would need to provide the information again. Although that is frustrating and annoying for the complainant, it is not a significant injustice to justify an Ombudsman investigation. There is no worthwhile outcome from an Ombudsman investigation at this stage.

Summary: Ms X complains about Derbyshire County Council and Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust. She says the organisations acted with fault when she was detained in hospital under the Mental Health Act in 2022. Ms X’s complaint is late and there are not enough good reasons for the Ombudsmen to investigate it now.

Summary: Mr A has complained about a council and hospital regarding his father-in-law, Mr B’s hospital discharge and homecare fees. We found fault with the hospital about a failed physiotherapy referral leading to a delay in this therapy which led to uncertainty about Mr B’s recovery. We did not find fault with the other aspects of this complaint. The hospital has agreed to carry out our recommendation in relation to physiotherapy.

Summary: Mrs D complained the Council delayed providing her son with an assisted living placement. She also complained the Council failed to provide her with support in setting up direct payments and it did not provide her with respite care. We find the Council was at fault for its delays in exploring an assisted living placement for Mrs D’s son. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide transport to and from her adult son’s day centre. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, there is another body better placed to consider her complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about being charged for care which she believes should have been free as she was told it was reablement care. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council wrongfully terminating his company’s contract for services. This is because there is an alternative legal remedy available.

Summary: The complainant says the Council’s assessment of residential care charges is flawed, and it wrongly took safeguarding action. The Council is at fault for not providing proper reasons for some residential care charges and for the way it completed safeguarding. To remedy the anxiety, time and trouble, the errors caused; the Council has agreed to apologise to the complainant and make a symbolic payment. It will also provide clear reasons for its charging decision and make service improvements.

Summary: Mr F complained on behalf of his mother, Mrs J, that the Council failed to take action after she was discharged from hospital in May 2023. As a result she was left needing residential care. Mr F also complained that the Council’s financial assessment did not take all his mother’s costs into account. We found some fault by the Council in the way it dealt with matters but this did not cause injustice to Mrs J.

Summary: Mr F complained on behalf of his late father about the care provided at Lyndhurst Rest Home on the day he died. We found no fault in the care provided but there was fault with complaint handling for which the Care Provider has now apologised.

Summary: Miss B complains about how the Borough Council supervised disabled adaptations to her home. There was no fault by the Borough Council or its agents acting on its behalf. The Borough Council acted quickly to make sure the gas leak was fixed. It met its building control duties, and the County Council, acting on its behalf, made sure that defective drainage was rectified.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to seek to recover care costs from him and its decision that he had deprived himself of assets. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms X’s tenant’s need for adult social care. We cannot achieve the outcome she seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue a companion bus pass. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Avon & Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust did not appropriately record Miss X’s reasonable adjustments during a meeting. That did not cause her an injustice but the Trust should still take action to stop similar fault happening to others. Also, an Approved Mental Health Professional for North Somerset Council did not inform Mr X of his rights as Miss X’s nearest relative following a Mental Health Act assessment. The Council should apologise for the frustration caused to him.

Summary: Mr X complained the care provider did not provide a breakdown of its costs and carers did not attend for their allotted visit times. He also complained about the standard of care provided to his mother. We have found the actions of the care provider caused injustice. The care provider agreed to apologise, make payments for the distress and uncertainty caused and carry out a service improvement.

Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Mr X's care arrangements. It acted properly and in accordance with the law. There is no fault in the charges levied for Mr X’s residential stay. There is fault in the way the Council dealt with Mrs X’s complaint. It delayed in responding and failed to address all points of complaint.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in assessing his care needs and the adequacy of his subsequent care and support plan. The Council accepts it delayed in assessing Mr X and failed to carry out a proper assessment. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, carry out a new assessment and make a payment to Mr X to recognise the care costs he incurred as a result of its delay.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care planning. We are satisfied with the Council’s actions to accept fault and learn from the complaint. It is unlikely we would add to the Council’s investigation or achieve a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to provide a refund of a particular amount for care costs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault that a refund of this amount was actually owed.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Care Provider has responded to Mrs X’s concerns about her mother’s care. Investigation by the Ombudsman would not result in a different outcome, as the Care Provider has already addressed the issues and there is insufficient evidence its actions caused significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council charging him a contribution for his care and support and for failing to take into consideration his personal outgoings when completing his financial assessment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the respite care her late husband Mr X received at a care home commissioned by the Council. Investigation would not add to previous safeguarding enquiries nor lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to disregard Mrs Y’s property when it assessed her finances and its refusal to offer her a Deferred Payment Agreement. The dispute at the centre of the complaint relies on interpretation of the law. The courts are therefore best placed to consider the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to an adult social care complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the outcome of a means test for a Disabled Facilities Grant. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.