A weekly update on adult social care complaint decisions

Summary: There was fault in the way the Council carried out a safeguarding enquiry into concerns about a care home. This meant there is uncertainty of what would have happened if the enquiry had been carried out differently. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay a symbolic financial remedy and review its practice.

Summary: There was fault in the way the care home provided care to Mrs C. This has caused distress to Mrs C and her daughter. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy and carry out a service improvement to address the injustice.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed sending her an invoice for an estate she was administering as executor. Ms X has settled the estate and does not have the money to pay the invoice. This has caused her distress. The Council is at fault for failing to notify Ms X of the invoice in an appropriate manner and timescale. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and confirm in writing it will not pursue the debt.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed assess his disability related expenditure properly when calculating his contribution towards his care costs. On the evidence available we have found fault in how the Council considered some of Mr X’s disability related expenditure. We recommend the Council apologise to Mr X and review its decision on some of his disability related expenditure. It should also backdate disability related expenditure for the support Mr X needs to attend social and religious events, from the date of his financial assessment until the end of January 2025.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with his mother’s care. Other bodies are better placed to consider Mr X’s concerns about the Council’s corporate appointeeship for his mother. Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s interaction with him is late and there are no good reasons exercise discretion to accept this late complaint now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mr X’s concerns raised with the Safeguarding Unit. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint alleging the Council failed to protect her late relative from financial abuse and coercive behaviour. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a carer employed by the Care Provider. We could not achieve the outcome Miss X seeks from complaining.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to end her day centre placement at a mental health hub. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the claimed fault has not caused any injustice.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has failed to assess her sister’s needs properly and has failed to get the deprivation of her sister’s liberty authorised. The Council has delayed in reviewing her sister’s needs and in applying to have the deprivation of her liberty authorised. It also failed to ensure she received a consolidated response to all her concerns. The Council needs to apologise to Mrs X for the distress it has caused. It also needs to apply to the Court of Protection to have the deprivation of her sister’s liberty authorised and take action to improve its services.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has not made reasonable allowances for Disability Related Expenses for her son. We found fault with the Council’s rationale of declining a Disability Related Expense for Cetaphil. We did not find fault with the Council’s other decisions but are aware new evidence is now available to Mrs X. The Council agreed to reconsider its decision about declining a Disability Related Expense for Cetaphil. The Council also agreed to write to Mrs X to detail what evidence it needs so it can reconsider other Disability Related Expense requests.

Summary: On behalf of his mother, Mrs B, Mr Z complained about the way the Council handled Mrs B’s care charges following a change to her financial circumstances in November 2022. We have found the Council at fault for failing to recalculate Mrs B’s care charges to include the agreed discretionary disregard of her property. This has caused the family distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and provide Mr Z an updated breakdown of Mrs B’s care charges.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly consider her blue badge applications under the hidden disabilities criteria. She said this negatively impacts her due to the anxiety and stress she experiences when travelling. We did not find the Council at fault for how it decided to decline her applications.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council failed to inform them of the outcome of a safeguarding investigation, which caused them distress and uncertainty. The Council has accepted fault and apologised. This is appropriate to remedy the injustice caused. The Council also delayed responding to their complaints, which was fault and this caused them further uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a service improvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse him a Blue Badge. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how her late parents' Care Provider dealt with issues about outstanding charges. There is not enough evidence of fault in relation to the Care Provider’s handling of outstanding charges for Mrs X’s late father. There is also nothing more we could add to the Care Provider’s investigation and response to Mrs X’s complaint about how the Care Home Manager approached discussions with her about outstanding charges.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not having paid Miss X direct payments to hire a personal assistant. We will not reconsider matters we already decided in 2024. Given this, investigation of later events would not achieve a meaningful outcome, and we could not say any later fault by the Council caused injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council failing to safeguard his health and wellbeing due to failure to respond appropriately to his reports about significant disrepair in his property. This is because the complaint is out of our jurisdiction.

Suffolk County Council (24 021 614)

Summary: Miss X complained about the financial assessment the Council completed. She said it did not include all her disability related expenditure, and her assessed weekly contribution is unaffordable. As a result, Miss X had to go without essentials for her disability. There was no fault in the Council’s decision-making.

Summary: We upheld Mr Y’s complaint about a failure to provide appropriate communication support, about the charge for his care and about a poor complaint response. The Council will apologise, waive charges, complete a fresh assessment for disability expenses and make Mr Y a payment of £500 to reflect avoidable distress and confusion.

Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council assessed Mr X’s care needs, therefore the Ombudsman cannot question the merits of its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council’s invoices for her mother’s care charges are wrong. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, an investigation would not lead to any further outcomes.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the care to her late mother Mrs Y in a home commissioned by the Council. An investigation by us would not add to the care home and Council’s previous investigation nor lead to a different outcome. There is no worthwhile outcome an investigation would now achieve.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council refused her application for a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her son’s blue badge application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.