A weekly update on adult social care complaint decisions

Summary: Ms X complained a care home arranged by the Council failed to provide suitable care for her mother. We found fault with the care home failing to provide the full care detailed in Ms X’s mother’s care plan, delaying getting a prescription medicine and issues with complaint handling. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £250 for hers and her mother’s distress and inconvenience.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs S and Mrs T’s complaint for Mr V about the standards of care he received from a provider commissioned by the Council in his independent living accommodation because any injustice in it is not serious enough to warrant our involvement and we cannot achieve anything worthwhile by investigating.

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: There was fault by the Council in how it handled Mr B’s application for a blue badge and his appeal about this. The Council cannot show how it considered that Mr B had suffered recent falls. It is wrong to say that it can only use the information he provided. It should have considered whether he was complaining about the conduct of the assessor when he appealed the Council’s decision to renew his blue badge. This has left Mr B uncertain that his application and appeal was properly considered, but it is unlikely that a fresh review would mean the Council decide he is eligible for a blue badge. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a disabled facilities grant or the Council’s decision not to waive a local land charge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the decision from the Council to withdraw her direct payments. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council removed his relative from his care and investigated under its safeguarding procedures. 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 evidence of fault, and we cannot achieve the outcomes requested.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Care Provider failed to provide her mother (Y) with an adequate standard of care between October and November 2023. The Care Provider was at fault for poor record keeping and not carrying out care visits in line with when Y needed her medication. It was also at fault for how it administered Y’s care contract. However, it was not at fault for failing to stay for the full duration of Y’s care visits. The Care Provider has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Y to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the quality of domiciliary care. There is not a good reason for the delay in the complainant bringing the matter to the Ombudsman.

Summary: Mr Y complains about the Council’s involvement with various aspects of his mother’s care and support following her discharge from hospital in 2023. Some of the complaints raised by Mr Y are on behalf of his mother, Mrs W. Mr Y does not have authority to represent a complaint on Mrs W’s behalf and we have not investigated them. Some of the other complaints relate to the actions of a health body and Mr Y can pursue those separately. Of the remaining complaints, there was some delay by the Council in discussing the residential care charges with Mr Y, but it has provided a remedy for this, and we do not recommend any further action.

Summary: Mr C complained about how the Council carried out recommendations set out in an action plan regarding its Community Mental Health Services and how it communicated with him. We found some fault by the Council as it caused delay in implementing it plan and how it communicated with Mr C. The Council should apologise to him to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty this caused. We will not investigate other parts of Mr C’s complaint as this related to potential injustice to other service user and decisions considered in a previous Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: The Council did tell Mrs X she would have to pay towards the cost of her care. However, it was at fault for taking over a year to complete its financial assessment. As a result, Mrs X had the shock of a large bill and was denied the chance to make informed choices about her care. Mrs X would have accepted less care and cancelled the care package sooner had she known the cost. This is an injustice to Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise, recalculate Mrs X’s bill and make a payment to recognise her avoidable distress.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council refused an adaptation to his property. There is not enough evidence of fault to merit further investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s provision of care to her late mother, Mrs Y. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about damage to Mr Y’s washing machine. This is because claims for damages are for insurance companies or courts to determine. It would be reasonable for Mrs X to ask insurers or the court to consider her claim for damages and costs.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decisions or its assessments about Ms Y’s care and support needs. 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: the Council delayed in carrying out a financial assessment and then failed to take Ms X’s needs into consideration when it sent her forms to complete. The Council’s error in chasing a debt which was already paid caused additional stress and anxiety. The Council will now apologise to Ms X, carry out a thorough review of her disability-related expenses and offer a sum in recognition of the distress its actions have caused.

Summary: Mrs X complained about top-up fees for accommodation without being offered of a suitable and affordable alternative. We did not find fault with the accommodation the Council offered. We found fault with some communication and recommended the Council and the NHS Trust apologise for any distress this caused to Mrs X.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the arranging and managing of her care package which is funded by Sheffield City Council and NHS South Yorkshire ICB. This is because further investigation by the Ombudsmen is unlikely to add to the Council’s own investigation. While Ms X has ongoing concerns about the Council’s safeguarding process, it is too soon for us to look at this.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the quality of care her brother, Mr Y, received from the Council up to 2023. The Council has investigated Ms X’s concerns, provided a detailed reply and offered to meet with her to help resolve any outstanding concerns. We could not add to the Council’s response or achieve the outcomes Ms X wants, especially as Mr Y is in hospital and any future plan for his discharge will include reviewing his current needs for care and support.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider. Mr Y’s care is commissioned by the Integrated Care Board. Therefore, issues with his care are not administrative functions of the Care Provider, and we do not have the legal power to investigate them. The complaint must be made to the Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. The Council has already upheld the complaint and provided a suitable remedy. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Care Provider. That is because the complainant did not receive adult social care.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charges for care at home. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate due to lack of injustice. There is insufficient evidence of injustice arising from the Council’s fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s responses to Ms X’s safeguarding concerns about the care home provision and future care arrangements for her relative, Mrs Y. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is no indication of fault by the Council. And, as Mrs Y’s future care needs will be decided in the Court of Protection, we will not investigate. It is reasonable for Ms X to make her views known to the Court.

Summary: Mr X complains Unique Senior Care - Warwickshire failed to give proper notice that his relative’s usual care workers would be away, preventing them from making alternative arrangements, and failed to provide appropriate care until she moved to a care home in November 2023. The care provider is unable to evidence having met all the relative’s needs. This resulted in avoidable distress to her. The care provider needs to apologise to Mr X and make a symbolic payment to his relative.

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his mother Mrs Y, the Council failed to clearly set out and explain Mrs Y’s care charges and adjustments. The Council was at fault. It will recalculate Mrs Y’s care charges for early October 2022, apologise and pay Mr X a symbolic payment for the confusion and uncertainty caused by the backdated invoices and adjustments made. It will also provide evidence of the service improvements it has already put in place.

Summary: Mrs T complained about charges the Council made for a community service she received. The Council recognised it was at fault for delaying in considering representations from Mrs T that she could not afford the charges. It offered therefore to write-off those charges. We considered this represented a fair outcome to the complaint, remedying the distress caused to Mrs T by the Council’s fault.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council refused to carry out a financial assessment for her mother, Mrs Y. The Council was at fault for its lack of communication. The Council was not at fault for refusing to carry out a financial assessment. Because of the lack of communication, Miss X suffered uncertainty. The Council has apologised to Miss X which is a suitable remedy.

Summary: The Council identified failings in the management of Mrs Y’s care and in the way it responded to complaints about this, before the complaint came to this office, but it failed to offer an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: Mr X complained a social worker told lies about him and a relative. We will not investigate the complaint because an investigation is unlikely to find fault with the Council or achieve what Mr X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a visit by Council officers to her home and difficulties she faced when raising her complaint. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s investigation or reach a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a request for information and social care assessment. The Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to deal with complaints about how organisations handle requests for information. We could not achieve a worthwhile outcome for Mr X by investigating the other matters he complains about.

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

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed providing her with an update following a care needs assessment. Ms X also complained the Council did not do anything after she told it she needed support at home. Ms X says the Council’s actions caused her avoidable worry and distress and contributed to a decline in her mental and physical health. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and carry out a further needs assessment.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Care Provider’s handling of her mother’s care home fees because it has apologised and resolved the issue. Further investigation by us would therefore not be proportionate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a disabled facilities grant. Part of the complaint is late without good enough reason to investigate it now. More recent events have not caused significant enough unremedied injustice to warrant us investigating. It is unlikely an investigation would achieve significantly more.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s allegations the Council has acted fraudulently and unlawfully in relation to his deceased mother-in-law’s care costs. This is because such complaints fall outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We have upheld Mr X’s complaint the Council did not complete an adult social care assessment. The Council has agreed to complete an assessment. That is a proportionate remedy for any injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding. The Council followed the correct process to investigate a safeguarding alert. The Council has given thorough responses to the complainant about the outcome. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further. The main injustice claimed is not caused by the actions of the Council but is the actions of the care provider, which can be considered under a complaint against the provider.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council reneging on an agreement to pay her a higher pay rate as a respite carer. This is because the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. The Council has investigated and apologised for providing incorrect information. This is satisfactory and we are unlikely to add anything by investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about her uncle Mr Y’s care provision at a home commissioned by the Council, how the Council investigated her concerns, and delays in its complaint process. An investigation could not add to the Councils investigation nor lead to a different outcome. We cannot achieve the main personal remedy Mrs X seeks for Mr Y. We do not investigate complaints about councils’ complaint handling where we are not investigating the core matters giving rise to the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about Council decision making in relation to his mother, Ms Y’s, care. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s investigation or that an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his residential care. We find the Council at fault for a delay in advising Mr X of changes to his care. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a payment to recognise the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of care arrangements because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant it, nor of the Council causing significant enough injustice to meet the tests in our Assessment Code, and we could not achieve a significantly different result so long after the original events.