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.
Hertfordshire County Council (24 009 727)
Summary: The Council was not at fault for how its adult social care service handled Mr X’s home visits, his financial assessment or his mother’s correspondence. It was, however, at fault for how it handled his direct payments and his mother’s complaints. It was also at fault for a delay in telling Mr X and his mother that Mr X had a new social worker, which caused them uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise.
London Borough of Hackney (24 022 448)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her care and support assessment. We found avoidable delay by the Council in completing the assessment. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs X in recognition of the avoidable distress the delay caused.
Durham County Council (25 004 835)
Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council commissioned care home supported the late Mrs Y.
North Somerset Council (25 012 050)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the repayment of a Disabled Facilities Grant. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigation.
Bupa Care Homes (GL) Limited (25 012 341)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care and support provided to the complainant’s husband during a respite placement in a care home. The Care Provider agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy.
Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (25 012 379)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about services provided at a drug and alcohol service. We have no power to consider the complaint as it is not about actions that involve, or are connected to, the provision of adult social care.
Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (25 021 787)
Summary: We have no remit to investigate Mr X’s concerns about Barchester’s property management in an assisted living community. This is because there is no information to indicate the complaint matters relate to the provision of personal care.
HC-One Limited (25 025 498)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Care Home failing to correctly administer medication to his father, Mr Y. This is because we would not be able to add to the Care Provider’s investigation and we would not be able to achieve the outcome Mr X wants.
Derby City Council (24 022 503)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to respond to complaints, failed to adhere to her agreed reasonable adjustments and failed to carry out a suitable care needs assessment. She also queried its actions about Direct Payments. We found no fault in the Council’s complaint responses. We found there was some failure to adhere to agreed Reasonable Adjustments and some delays in contacting her at times, but the Council had offered an assessment. We recommended an apology and that the council offered another fresh assessment. We found no fault regarding direct payments.
Durham County Council (24 023 263)
Summary: Mrs X complains on behalf of Miss Y that the Council did not deal properly with Miss Y’s adult social care. The Council is not at fault.
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (25 002 493)
Summary: The Council was at fault in how it decided to meet Mrs X’s needs after she asked for help caring for her adult son. The Council also delayed assessing Mrs X’s needs and responding to her complaint. The fault caused Mrs X significant frustration and uncertainty, for which the Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment. The Council will also revise its policy for carers and issue a staff reminder.
Southampton City Council (25 007 459)
Summary: Mr X complained that the Council placed his father in a care home without a financial assessment, a signed agreement or proper consent. We have not investigated this complaint as it is late and there is no good reason why Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.
Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (25 010 973)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. This is because we cannot carry out a full, fair and effective investigation into the Council’s actions now due to the significant passage of time since the events complained about.
Nottingham City Council (25 011 897)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council changing arrangements for an adult social care meeting. We could not add value by further investigating the matter.
Leeds City Council (25 012 247)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s Blue Badge application process. There is not enough evidence of fault and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.
London Borough of Havering (25 012 399)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s and NHS Trust’s decisions and communication about charges for a care placement after her mother, Mrs Y, was discharged from hospital. We found no indications of fault by the organisations with the decisions. The Trust did accept it could have given more notice on the day Mrs Y left hospital to a care home and it apologised for any distress. We are unlikely to achieve a different outcome by investigating.
Lincolnshire County Council (25 013 669)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint from Mrs X about the Council failing to take appropriate action to safeguard her late father. Mrs X’s complaint is late and there is no good reason she could not have complained sooner.
London Borough of Southwark (25 018 628)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of information relating to safeguarding matters. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider it now.
Nottingham City Council (25 023 209)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about lack of response from Mr X’s social worker to his attempts to make contact. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation by the Ombudsman.
Nottingham City Council (25 003 780)
Summary: We have found the Council at fault for incorrectly telling Miss X that the respite time she received for her daughter, Miss Y was significant reducing. This caused the family avoidable distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice.
North Yorkshire Council (25 011 075)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that North Yorkshire Council and NHS Humber and North Yorkshire ICB failed to provide her with aftercare following her detention under the Mental Health Act in 2014. This is because a significant amount of time has passed since the events Ms X is complaining about occurred and it would have been reasonable for her to complain to us sooner. We will not investigate her complaint about the actions of an Approved Mental Health Practitioner as there is insufficient evidence of fault.
London Borough of Haringey (24 008 108)
Summary: Ms Y complained about the Council’s support for her late son, Z, and the standard of support by the service provider the Council commissioned to deliver Z’s support. We have found fault causing injustice by the Council in failing to: properly monitor the service provider’s support for Z and take effective action to address this; and ensure there was an appropriate plan in place to respond to concerns about Z’s safety. We have also found fault with the service provider in the way it delivered Z’s support. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising to Ms Y for the extreme distress caused, making a payment to recognise this distress, and a service improvement.
Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (24 021 599)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide his parents’ care and support plans, initially said the care costs would be minimal then charged more than £4000, and had poor communication when he raised concerns. He said this caused huge stress and worry to him and his parents, and he lost the opportunity of arranging cheaper and more reliable private care. We find the Council at fault for failing to provide the care and support plans, delays in completing the financial assessments, and for some of its communication, which caused distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice.
Pressbeau Ltd (25 003 724)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Care Provider treated Funded Nursing Care in relation to care charges. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
Hertsmere Borough Council (25 003 840)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed getting permission from the freeholder for adaptations under a disabled facilities grant. He also complained the Council did not properly consider it’s anticipatory duty under the Equality Act 201 as it failed to consider using discretionary funding to pay for the works. There was an initial delay by the Council in seeking permission but most of the 12 month delay was down to the freeholder. The Council will provide an apology for its failings which caused Mr X frustration and impacted on his safety, dignity and wellbeing.
Leeds City Council (25 005 979)
Summary: Miss X complained that the Council did not provide enough support during a house move. We have found the Council was at fault for poor communication, causing distress and uncertainty. However, it provided the agreed support on the day of the move. The Council apologised and offered a remedy payment, which remedies Miss X’s injustice.
Surrey County Council (25 008 644)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failures in communication about adult social care support. The injustice is not enough to justify our involvement. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has already taken to apologise and offer to meet, and it is unlikely we would achieve anything further.
Peterborough City Council (25 009 840)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of disabled adaptations. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate now. Further, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement.
Peterborough City Council (25 011 172)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to renew a blue badge. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to justify our investigation.
Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (25 013 655)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s commissioned Care Home and the care it delivered to his mother, Mrs Y. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, a further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and so we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.
Somerset Council (25 005 577)
Summary: Ms Y complains about the Council’s failure to safeguard a vulnerable adult before their death. We have discontinued our investigation because the matters complained about are currently subject to a serious incident safeguarding review, criminal investigation and Coroner’s inquest.
Staffordshire County Council (25 009 965)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the level of care provided to her late relative and overcharging prior to 2016 because we could not achieve a worthwhile outcome, given the lapse of time since the events complained about. We will not investigate her complaint about the Council taking enforcement action in respect of outstanding care costs because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
Kent County Council (25 010 732)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council communicated with a family member regarding Mr B’s status as his mother’s lasting power of attorney. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating this complaint and his complaint about the way the Council considered his mother’s care needs.
Durham County Council (25 013 804)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Z’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her late husband’s care charges. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.
Nottinghamshire County Council (25 013 874)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council completed a financial assessment with her late father, Mr Y. This is because the complaint is late, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and so we would not be able to achieve the outcome she wants.
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (25 016 689)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in completing its financial assessment and pursuing payment for Mrs Y’s home care charges. This is because any further investigation is unlikely to add anything to the Council’s own investigation and response. The Council has already reduced the care charges owed and taken action to improve so there is nothing more we could achieve by investigating further.
East Sussex County Council (25 004 520)
Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of the late Mrs Z that the Council failed to keep adequate records regarding a fall from a hoist. Mr X says the Council delayed in advising of and completing a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards assessment and failed to consider or record safeguarding concerns. Mr X also says the Council denied access to Mrs Z’s records. Mr X says this has caused the family significant distress. We have found fault in the Councils actions for delay in completing a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards assessments and completing a safeguarding investigation. The Council has agreed to issue Mr X with an apology.