Local Government and Social Care Ombudsmans Decisions

Northamptonshire County Council (18 014 995)

Summary: There is no documentary evidence Council officers told Mrs X she would only pay £20 a week towards the cost of her care package. The Council had previously provided care for Mrs X which was chargeable. There was a delay before Mrs X was told the outcome of the financial assessment but no evidence that has made a difference to the outcome.

Lancashire County Council (18 017 385)

Summary: There were procedural faults by a care home during the complainant’s stay, in a placement commissioned by the Council. The Council undertook a safeguarding investigation which highlighted this, and worked with the care home to make several improvements. However, these faults did not cause an injustice to the complainant.

Pilgrims’ Friend Society (18 017 901)

Summary: Mrs B complained about the Care Provider placing restrictions on the hours she is able to visit her father in a care home. We are unable to find fault with the actions taken.

Devon County Council (18 012 413)

Summary: Mr F complained the services he received from adult social care reduced when he moved to Devon from another Council. Mr F complained he needed more support than the Council provided. The Ombudsman has not found fault with the Council.

North Yorkshire County Council (18 018 542)

Summary: Mr N complained on behalf of his uncle, Mr X, that the Council provided Mr X with intermediate care and then wrongly charged him both for this and for later care. He also complained the Council failed to include him in assessments about Mr X’s care. There was fault in the way the Council carried out Mr X’s financial assessment. However, this did not cause him an injustice. The Council should reassess Mr X’s financial contribution for the period he was in a residential short stay.

Lancashire County Council (19 003 358)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the care that the complainant’s mother received in the care home where she lived. This is because there is nothing that we could add to the Council’s safeguarding investigation and no further outcome that we could achieve.

London Borough of Wandsworth (19 004 138)

Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s refusal to repay the top-up fees he paid for his mother’s care home between 2006 and 2011. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because the events complained about happened too long ago to be investigated now and so fall outside our jurisdiction.

Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (19 004 200)

Summary: A disabled man complained the Council had not taken sufficient responsibility for defective works a builder carried when making adaptations to his property in 2014, and had not done enough to help resolve the ongoing problems caused by these works. But the Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because it has been made late.

Bath and North East Somerset Council (18 002 879)

Summary: Mrs L complains Cranhill Nursing Home failed to care properly for her late husband Mr L. She also complains there was fault in the Council’s safeguarding investigation into Mr L’s care and the events leading up to his death. The Ombudsmen have partly upheld Mrs L’s complaints and made recommendations. The Ombudsmen have not found a link between poor care and Mr L’s death.

Surrey County Council (18 011 091)

Summary: The Council was at fault because, after it arranged residential care for Mrs B, she was overcharged for the care she received. The Council has agreed that Mrs B’s estate will be refunded with £3,769.72. The Council has also agreed to arrange for an apology to be sent to Mr C for the failure to issue this refund earlier, which led to him taking time and trouble to pursue the complaint.

Dorset County Council (18 014 574)

Summary: Mrs H complains on behalf of her mother about the Council’s decision that she had deprived herself of capital, in order to reduce the amount she was charged for care. The Ombudsman’s view is the Council’s decision was a reasonable one for it to make, based on the evidence available. So it is not one the Ombudsman can criticise.

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (18 015 521)

Summary: Ms B complained about a number of issues in respect of her social care needs assessment. There was fault by the Council in the time it took to complete its initial assessment which caused Ms B injustice. The Council has agreed to pay £200 to Ms B.

London Borough of Harrow (18 018 623)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about an application for a Blue Badge because it is unlikely he would find fault by the Council.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (18 019 424)

Summary: We uphold Mrs A’s complaint about poor wound care for her late father Mr B. The Council will apologise and pay Mrs A £1000 to recognise her avoidable distress.

Sheffield City Council (19 005 109)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss Q’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of her blue badge application. The Council has now renewed her blue badge. This is a fair remedy.

Wimbledon Opco Limited (18 010 072)

Summary: The complaint is about care in a care home, including not using a sensor mat, despite it being an assessed need, giving Mr F sandwiches, which was a choke hazard and some issues with staff. The Ombudsman upholds the complaint and has agreed remedies.

Dorset County Council (18 012 800)

Summary: The Ombudsmen find there was an avoidable and unreasonable delay in arranging support for a man entitled to s117 aftercare. As a result he missed out on an opportunity to benefit from this support for close to a year. The fault also meant his mother incurred costs she would not have otherwise had, in attempting to provide replacement care. The NHS Trust has agreed to apologise, make payments and create an action plan to address the injustice these failings caused.

Durham County Council (18 016 600)

Summary: It was not fault on the part of the Council to consider all the proceeds of the late Mr B’s house sale as his own and to calculate his finances accordingly.

Thomas Henry Mallaband Limited (18 017 122)

Summary: The care provider should have applied for the Funding Nursing Care (FNC) award. It should have provided clearer information about the fees payable for Mrs X. It has apologised to Mr A for its shortcomings. It should review the way in which its information for prospective residents is worded to avoid more confusion and refund the amount of the FNC payments.

London Borough of Islington (19 004 267)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the cessation of an adoption support allowance. It is unlikely we would find fault as the subject of that allowance is now an adult and the Council has no duty to support them.

London Borough of Haringey (19 004 766)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council failed to deal properly with her request for aids to help with bathing and shower needs. Ms X is content that the Council is taking appropriate action to deal with the matter.

Essex County Council (17 016 547)

Summary: The Ombudsmen have found fault by a Council and two NHS Trusts with hospital discharge planning. This meant a patient’s discharge from hospital was delayed unnecessarily. The Ombudsmen also found fault by a Council with its best interest decision process. The Council has already acknowledged this and taken action to address the failings. The faults caused the complainant distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsmen have recommended the organisations apologise and pay the complainant a total of £400 in recognition of the injustice caused by the faults.

Essex County Council (18 002 131)

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of her late husband’s financial assessment. She complains the Council did not disregard 50% of the income from his state earnings-related pension scheme (SERPS) and did not properly consider their expenses. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to properly consider whether Mr X’s personal expense allowance was enough to enable him to meet his property related costs. The Council has agreed to consider the matter again. The Council was not at fault for not disregarding 50% of the income from the SERPS.

Stardust Healthcare Ltd (18 008 833)

Summary: The complainant says the Care Provider did not provide a properly managed care service for his mother. He says it did not respond properly to his complaints, resulting in him seeking an alternative service. The Care Provider says it offered good care resulting in improvements to the customer’s mobility and wellbeing. The Care Provider says the complainant broke the terms and conditions of the service agreement. The Ombudsman finds the Care Provider caused injustice in failing to follow its complaints procedure, address the complainant’s concerns and give a formal reasoned response to the complaint.

Blackburn with Darwen Council (18 014 400)

Summary: Mr B complains that the Council have not properly dealt with charges for Mrs C’s residential care. The Council did not deal properly with charges because Mrs C has been overcharged for residential care. The Council should apologise to Mrs C, refund £12,488.38 for overpaid care charges and review its practices when commissioning care.

Grove House Residential Care Home (18 014 543)

Summary: Miss X complains Grove House Residential Care Home failed to support her mother, Mrs Y, properly with her application for support from Coventry City Council, resulting in a failure to get funding before she died. The evidence shows Grove House delayed in contacting the Council for help, resulting in Mrs Y losing out on funding. Ratan Care Homes, which owns Grove House, needs to apologise and pay £1,000 to Mrs Y’s estate.

Somerset County Council (19 002 611)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the lack of support her daughter (Ms Y) received from the Council’s adult social services team. This is because the complaint is late and too much time has now elapsed for a meaningful investigation.

London Borough of Redbridge (18 013 938)

Summary: The Ombudsmen will not investigate Mrs D’s complaint about the care and treatment provided to Mr Y after he was discharged from detention under s3 of the Mental Health Act. This is because I do not consider that an investigation would achieve anything further for Mrs D.