A weekly update on adult social care complaint decisions

Summary: We uphold Mr X’s complaint about his brother, Mr Y’s, care and treatment. There was a short break in Mr Y’s medication management. We also found Mr X was not informed about one of Mr Y’s Mental Health Act assessments. However, we have not found a significant injustice arising from these actions. There was fault with the Trust and the Council’s complaint handling, but sufficient steps have already been taken to address this.

Summary: There is no evidence that the Council ignored Ms X’s correspondence although the volume of contacts was difficult to manage. The care plan was produced in a timely manner which took account of some previous complaints that care plans had been rushed. Ms X successfully appealed the number of hours allocated.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his aunt, Miss Y’s finances. We found fault in the Council’s failure to send a deputyship referral. We also found fault with the Council’s communication about financial information and record keeping. This caused Miss Y’s family frustration and uncertainty. The Council will apologise for this and make service improvements.

Summary: There is evidence that consideration was given to Mrs X’s eligibility for CHC funding while she was in hospital and subsequently. The first four weeks of her residential placement were funded by the NHS but afterwards she was responsible for funding her own care.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council had started to charge him for transport services although he believed he was eligible for s117 aftercare and should not pay charges. The Council has provided evidence he was not eligible for free aftercare. Following an investigation into Mr X’s complaint about the unreliability of the transport service, and his decision to arrange alternative provision, the Council has now waived all charges. The complaint will not be investigated further as there is no outstanding injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way a Council-funded care home assessed his mother’s (Mrs X) dependency levels. We have found fault with the Council (as the responsible body) for not ensuring the dependency scores reflected Mrs X’s circumstances. This caused Mr X to pay higher top-up fees and caused avoidable distress. We have recommended the Council apologise and pay a financial remedy.

Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council has reached its decision about the disability related expenditure allowance for Mr X or explained the situation to Mr and Mrs A.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in considering his request for his mother (Y’s) residential care home fees to be paid through a Deferred Payment Agreement (DPA). He also complained of the Council’s poor communication in relation to this. The Council was at fault because it took 10 months to issue the DPA contract. The Council should make a payment to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty this caused. However, there is no fault in how the Council communicated with Mr X regarding the DPA.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly calculated how much his wife, Mrs X, should pay towards her care fees and delayed issuing him a refund after it later decided she did not need to pay full costs. The Council was at fault for failing to act on a letter Mr X sent to it. This caused him frustration and uncertainty The Council also delayed issuing a later refund to Mr X, which caused him frustration and meant he was unable to earn interest on the sum. To remedy Mr X’s injustice, the Council will apologise and pay him interest on the refunded sum.

Summary: Ms C complains the Council has failed to renew her Blue Badge application. The Council is at fault for delay, and failing to provide proper reasons for rejecting Ms C’s review. This has caused Ms C uncertainty about whether the Council has properly considered her review request and her time and trouble in escalating her complaint. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms C, and make service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a refusal to provide support for her relative, Mr Y, to move to independent living. The Council has since offered Mr Y a care act needs assessment. It is unlikely an investigation would achieve anything more.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about changes to a person’s adult social care personal budget. The Council has correctly made its decisions based on an assessment of needs. There is no reason to expect the Council to backdate changes to a time before they were requested. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in completing a disabled facilities grant adaptation. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council shared incorrect property ownership details. This is because there is no good reason why Mr X cannot take the matter to court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue her with a blue badge. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process when determining her application to warrant us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s adult social care and housing involvement with her son. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to accept her complaint without her son’s consent.

Summary: Ms D complained the Council delayed completing the financial assessment for her mother, Ms X, and failed to explain how much her care would cost. She said had Ms X known the cost of the care package; she would not have accepted it. This has caused her emotional and financial distress. The Council is at fault for failing to provide clear written information about the charging process and delay in the financial assessment process.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to meet his care and support needs since 2020 and mismanagement of his direct payments since they were first made in 2016. This led to a large debt that Mr X cannot afford to repay and caused a significant decline in his mental health. We found the Council to be at fault. It failed to monitor the direct payment and address the surplus in his account. To remedy the injustice to Mr X, the Council has agreed to apologise, reduce the debt, and take action to improve its service.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed the progress of a Disabled Facilities Grant for work needed for the benefit of her son. The scheme was not completed within the maximum timeframes set out in government guidance causing significant distress to the family. There is evidence of periods of inaction and delay which is fault. A suitable remedy is agreed.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to arrange a package of care for him when he returned home in December 2023 and unreasonably increased the charges for his care. The Council failed to give Mr X copies of his assessment and care and support plan in 2023. It failed to provide timely information about the cost of and charges for his care. It also failed to take account of the fact it had been told Mr X’s stay in a care home would be for two weeks. These failings caused avoidable distress and prevented Mr X from making informed decisions about his care. The Council needs to apologise and make a symbolic payment for the distress. It also needs to improve its working practices.

Summary: Ms X complains the about the way the Council dealt with her request for a Disabled Facilities Grant assessment to carry out adaptations at her property for her daughter causing distress and uncertainty. We found there was service failure by the Council due to the delay in carrying out an Occupational Therapy assessment. We have recommended a suitable remedy for the injustice caused in this case so are completing our investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with the financial assessment of his family member, Mrs Y. Mr X said this caused him and his family distress. We did not find fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council considered her adult children’s disabled related expenditure because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: Mr F complained on behalf of his son about delay by the Council in considering his application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. We found fault which caused distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to Mr F and his son to remedy this.

Summary: There was fault by the Care provider. The Care provider gave the wrong information to a resident and then did not deduct Funded Nursing Contributions from fees which it said it would. Refunding the amount of the Funded Nursing Contribution’s remedies the injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider allegedly failing to notify Mrs Y’s energy provider when she moved into her property. We cannot investigate matters that do not involve, or are not connected to, the provision of adult social care. We therefore have no power to investigate the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to carry out additional work to fix issues, he said were caused by building works the Council completed under a Disabled Facilities Grant. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome he wants as only the courts can decide on liability for damage to property.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the care home where Mr X’s late father was placed. There is no good reason for the delay which would justify us investigating now.

Summary: A care home, acting on behalf of the Council, failed to properly assess the risks from another resident who later assaulted Mrs Y, causing life changing injuries and significant distress to her and her family. There was also delay and fault in the Council’s safeguarding investigation. To remedy the injustice caused the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment and service improvements.

Summary: Mrs X made some serious complaints about neglect during her late mother’s eight week stay at the Council’s commissioned care provider, the sands care home, before she died. She said the Council failed to complete adequate safeguarding investigations. We find the Council was at fault. This caused significant distress to Mrs X. To address this injustice caused by fault, the Council has agreed to make several recommendations.

Summary: Mr C complains the Council delayed in sending a bill for his late brother’s residential care, and for failing to pay back his costs. The Council is at fault for a 12 month delay in completing a financial assessment but there is no fault in how it considered Mr C’s expenses. To remedy the shock, time and trouble Mr C had in receiving a large bill the Council has agreed to apologise and make service improvements.

Summary: There was delay by the Council in reviewing Ms Y’s care and support plan causing avoidable uncertainty. There was delay in complaint handling and a failure to provide a response, causing avoidable distress and time and trouble. The Council will make a payment, apologise, make a decision on funding and review procedures to minimise the risk of delay in future.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the care provided to her deceased mother Mrs Y at Newbury Manor Nursing Home (the Care Provider). We find fault with the Care Provider for failing to follow Mrs Y’s drink chart, poor communication with Mrs X, failing to keep the family updated, and poor service to the family when Mrs Y died. We have agreed remedies with the Care Provider for the injustice caused.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council calculated what she should pay towards her care. There was no fault in the way the Council reached its decision about which of her purchases were disability-related expenditure and which were normal household expenses.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about @.

Summary: Ms C complains the Council failed to properly advise her of residential care charges. The Council has accepted fault and agreed to apologise and waive an outstanding charge.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the way the Council responded to her safeguarding concerns about her relative. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code. We are unlikely to find evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of arrangements for Ms V’s care and support because: the Court of Protection either supervises or should consider the arrangements; the Council has offered a suitable remedy for some shortfall in service and explained its decision on charges for Ms V's care and support; and we will not investigate the handling of correspondence for its own sake. The matter does not therefore warrant us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs A and Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of their cousin’s (Mrs D) needs before it decided she could return home. That is because we cannot achieve the outcomes they seek.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay completing an adult social care needs assessment. The Council has a queue of cases waiting, which it has triaged and prioritised. It has explained this to the complainant and apologised for the impact of the delay which is due to demand on its service. This is a service failure, but it is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would reach a different outcome to the actions the Council has already taken.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about parking provision at assessment centres for Blue Badges. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council has wrongly reduced his care package based on inaccurate information and without due regard to his disability. He complains this is affecting his health and wellbeing. We found there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council re-assessed Mr X’s care needs and reduced his care plan. However, the delays in responding to Mr Y’s complaints is fault.

Summary: Mr B says the Council wrongly stopped the person who had managed his direct payment for many years from doing so, failed to explain its decision, moved him to a Council managed budget without consent and refused to allow someone to attend his review. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to stop the person managing Mr B’s direct payments or in its decision to move him to a managed budget. The Council delayed making those decisions and failed to ask Mr B for his views on who to include in the review meeting. An apology, payment and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to take adequate action when she raised concerns about her late mother’s health and living conditions despite having knowledge of her history of mental health problems and hoarding behaviours. We found no grounds to criticise the Council’s actions. However, it was at fault in that it delayed in responding to Mrs X’s complaint. The Council has provided a satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused by this.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council initially refusing his blue badge application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the claimed fault has not caused any significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’ complaint about the Council’s incorrect advice about the cost of her mother, Mrs Y’s care. The Council has apologised, offered £500 to remedy the injustice caused and taken steps to prevent recurrence of the fault. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how an introductory care agency dealt with concerns about a care worker it supplied. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a lack of information about the cost of her mother’s care because the Council has offered a remedy for the uncertainty caused and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charging for adult social care. Although it is worrying for the complainant, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about Mrs Y’s care and charges. There is not a good reason for the delay in the matter being brought to the Ombudsman. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaint handling in isolation when we are not considering the substantive matter.