A weekly update on adult social care complaint decisions

Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council managed her care needs after the previous arrangement broke down and it did not provide her with the support or hours she needed. We found the Council at fault for significant delays with a reassessment of her needs and how it decided her care hours. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X, make a symbolic payment, and take action to prevent recurrence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate the Council’s response to Mr X’s concerns about a third party’s involvement in his parent’s finances. This is because we are unlikely to be able to add anything to the Council’s investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained the NHS Trust and the Council moved his father from hospital into a care home that could not meet his needs. Mr X says the failings led to his father suffering an injury which hastened his death. Mr X also complained the Council missed carer’s assessments, which meant he missed payments. We will not investigate these complaints because there is not enough evidence of fault with the discharge planning or with how the Council dealt with a carer’s assessment request. Other complaints about earlier carer’s assessments were late.

Summary: We have upheld Mrs X’s complaint about a lack of advice about the costs of adult social care. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs X to remedy the uncertainty caused. It will also remind relevant staff about the importance of providing appropriate information about charging for adult social care.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr Y’s adult social care. Part of the complaint is late. Another part relates to functions of the NHS rather than the Council, and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions relating to NHS functions. The Council has agreed to take early action to remedy injustice arising from fault we would likely find if we investigated the remaining complaints, and it is therefore not proportionate to investigate further.

Summary: We have upheld Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to provide adequate information about the costs of adult social care for her father. We asked the Council to remedy the injustice caused. It agreed to apologise and reduce the costs it charges Mr Y. It will also take action to prevent a recurrence of this issue.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s investigation into a safeguarding incident. This is because the injustice is not sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Care Provider preventing access to one of its residents. The Care Provider was acting on the wishes of the resident, who had capacity to decide. So, the actions of the Care Provider do not cause the claimed injustice. There is also nothing to now achieve as the resident has since died.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Councils refusal to install a bath in her property. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate it now. We will not investigate any complaint about the recent re-assessments because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay by the Council’s adult social care department and a failure to update the complainant. This is because we do not consider any fault has caused a significant enough injustice to justify our involvement, and there is no worthwhile outcome to achieve by an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to renew her son Mr Y’s Freedom Pass. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making processes or its decisions to warrant an investigation. It would be reasonable for Mrs X and Mr Y to make a further application to the Council.

Summary: Mrs Z complained the Council has wrongly withdrawn Mrs Y’s care package, without properly considering how her needs will be met until her land can be sold. We found the Council’s decision to immediately end Mrs Y’s care package and seek to recover all costs incurred since April 2023 is fault. This has caused an injustice as Mrs Y’s care needs are not currently being met and Mr Y and Mrs Z are suffering carer stress. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to Mr and Mrs Y and Mrs Z. It will also reinstate Mrs Y’s care package, review her situation and provide training to relevant staff.

Summary: A private landlord complains the Council took too long to end the tenancy of one of its tenants, who had lost the capacity to make that decision for herself, resulting in it losing out on housing benefit for many months. The Council took far too long to apply to the Court of Protection for permission to end the tenancy. While this did not result in a loss of housing benefit, it prevented the landlord from selling the property and put it to considerable trouble in chasing the Council for updates. The Council needs to apologise.

Summary: Mr B complained about the way the Council dealt with his adult son’s care needs. Mr B said the Council left gaps in his son’s care which meant Mr B had to provide that support. We found the Council is at fault and has caused an injustice due to delay and errors in its process. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment in recognition of the injustice identified.

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council made hasty arrangements for his mother’s care and failed to manage the commissioned service properly. There is evidence the Council’s commissioned service did not always provide the care for which it was contracted. The Council, which accepts some delays in the complaints process, has also offered Mr X £500 and now agrees to go further to recognise the injustice caused by a poor service.

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council wrongly decided his father, Mr Y, deprived himself of assets for the purpose of reducing his care fees. We found that the Council’s decision was not supported by all the available evidence, and so was fault. That fault caused Mr X and his siblings an injustice for which we have recommended a remedy.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to recognise that a malicious safeguarding concern had been raised about her, resulting in it investigating the concern and subjecting her to supervised contact with her son. The Council accepts it should have started making safeguarding enquiries when it first received the concern in December 2023 and has apologised. There is no other evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs X complains about how the Council carried out financial assessments for her sons, Mr Y and Mr Z. Mrs X says this has resulted in them being charged for care. We find fault with the Council for its communication about charges, and its consideration of Mrs X’s complaint. We agreed the Council will apologise to Mrs X and carry out service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council allowing his late sister to deal with his mother’s financial affairs even though she had special needs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his relative’s Disabled Facilities Grant application. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s charges for commissioned respite care for him and his wife Mrs X, and the information it gave about its charging. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about privately arranged adult social care in a care home. It is unlikely we would add to investigations already undertaken or reach a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Care Provider contacted the Police following an incident. There is not enough of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a discretionary property disregard application. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about her relative's care. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise our discretion and investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council cutting the payments she received as a shared lives carer without telling her the reasons why. This is because the faults accepted did not cause any significant injustice. In addition, we are not likely to find fault as the Council is paying in line with its scheme.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council failing to fully investigate safeguarding concerns about a relative. This is because the injustice is not sufficient to warrant an investigation, and we would not achieve significantly more than the Council has already suggested.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the late Mrs X’s respite stay at a care home in 2024 and it not allowing them to comment on an external report. It is unlikely investigation by us could add to the care provider and safeguarding investigations nor reach a different outcome. We cannot now remedy any injustice to Mrs X, and the personal injustice caused to Mr X by the matters complained of is not sufficiently significant to warrant us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care during a short respite break at a care home. The Care Provider accepted some fault, apologised, offered £200, and gave staff training to improve future service. We are satisfied with its actions in response to the complaint, and it is unlikely we would achieve anything further.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council responded to her communication. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: Mrs X complained about a Council decision to charge Mr Y the full costs of his care and support. This caused distress and financial hardship. She said the Council accepted it made an error, but did not fully refund Mr Y or acknowledge the impact of its actions. We did not find fault in the Council’s consideration of Mrs X’s complaint and or in the amount it refunded to Mr Y.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial assessment for adult residential care. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his father’s growing care debt. He says his father cannot afford the care bill and the Council has failed to provide any support with regards to this. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint stating the Council failed to progress a Disabled Facilities Grant for his disabled relative. This is because the complaint has been made late, and I see no good reason why Mr X could not have complained in time.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not using its discretion to arrange a residential care home placement for a self-funding resident. This is because there is no fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs Z, on behalf of Mrs X, complained the Council delaying completing a care needs assessment, delayed completing a financial assessment and failed to effectively communicate. The Council accepts fault and has proposed a remedy which includes correctly applying a disregard and making a symbolic payment for the frustration and distress caused. This is a suitable remedy and so we will discontinue the investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council does not provide enough support to meet his needs for social contact. The evidence shows the Council has properly considered Mr X’s needs and provided the support to meet them. In the absence of fault in the way the Council has reached its decision it is not for us to criticise it.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a safeguarding referral. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about her brother, Mr Y’s, care and treatment by Gloucestershire County Council, Gloucestershire Health and Care NHS Foundation Trust and Minchinhampton Surgery. A significant amount of time has passed since some of the events complained about occurred which impacts on our ability to consider them now. We are unlikely to find fault on some points. Finally, further investigation by the Ombudsmen is unlikely to achieve the changes to Mr Y’s care that Miss X is hoping for.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council charged her late mother for her care placement. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to pay the full cost of the complainant’s care. This is because the matter has been to court.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about adult social care, because the care package is arranged and funded by the NHS.

Summary: We will not investigate a Council-commissioned care provider’s response to Ms X’s complaint about poor care. This is because it is unlikely we could add to the investigation and responses the care provider has already provided.

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to give him sufficient notice of changes to its non-residential care charging policy. We did not find the Council to be at fault because it gave adequate notice and carried out a disability related expenditure assessment to ensure Mr X could afford to pay.