| 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. Cheshire East Council (23 021 149)
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. Trafford Council (23 021 157)
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. London Borough of Southwark (24 011 308)
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. West Northamptonshire Council (24 012 145)
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 Xâs 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. Lincolnshire County Council (24 016 792)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs involvement with his motherâs care. Other bodies are better placed to consider Mr Xâs concerns about the Councilâs corporate appointeeship for his mother. Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs interaction with him is late and there are no good reasons exercise discretion to accept this late complaint now. London Borough of Havering (24 019 120)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mr Xâs concerns raised with the Safeguarding Unit. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (24 019 282)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs 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. Dorset Council (24 019 357)
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. Leeds City Council (24 019 632)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Councilâs 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. Bath and North East Somerset Council (24 001 607)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has failed to assess her sisterâs needs properly and has failed to get the deprivation of her sisterâs liberty authorised. The Council has delayed in reviewing her sisterâs 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 sisterâs liberty authorised and take action to improve its services. Gloucestershire County Council (24 007 719)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has not made reasonable allowances for Disability Related Expenses for her son. We found fault with the Councilâs rationale of declining a Disability Related Expense for Cetaphil. We did not find fault with the Councilâs 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. Southampton City Council (24 009 554)
Summary: On behalf of his mother, Mrs B, Mr Z complained about the way the Council handled Mrs Bâs care charges following a change to her financial circumstances in November 2022. We have found the Council at fault for failing to recalculate Mrs Bâs 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 Bâs care charges. Devon County Council (24 011 453)
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. Cumberland Council (24 011 491)
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. London Borough of Ealing (24 017 835)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision to refuse him a Blue Badge. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Sanctuary Care Limited (24 018 479)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs 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 Providerâs handling of outstanding charges for Mrs Xâs late father. There is also nothing more we could add to the Care Providerâs investigation and response to Mrs Xâs complaint about how the Care Home Manager approached discussions with her about outstanding charges. London Borough of Camden (24 019 004)
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. London Borough of Ealing (24 019 021)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs 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)
Suffolk County Council (24 021 614) Brighton & Hove City Council (24 006 224)
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 Councilâs decision-making. Kent County Council (24 012 580)
Summary: We upheld Mr Yâs 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. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (24 012 644)
Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council assessed Mr Xâs care needs, therefore the Ombudsman cannot question the merits of its decision. Milton Keynes Council (24 016 921)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint that the Councilâs invoices for her motherâs care charges are wrong. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, an investigation would not lead to any further outcomes. Somerset Council (24 017 398)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs 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 Councilâs previous investigation nor lead to a different outcome. There is no worthwhile outcome an investigation would now achieve. London Borough of Harrow (24 018 048)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint that the Council refused her application for a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. London Borough of Ealing (24 019 018)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision to refuse her sonâs blue badge application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. | 