Lancashire County Council (20 003 920)

Statement Upheld Residential care 11-Mar-2021

Summary: Mrs B complained that a Care Provider commissioned by the Council terminated her mother’s place at the home unreasonably because a family member did not wish to provide their contact details. We found fault because the Council took no action to mediate between the parties to try and resolve the situation. The Council has agreed to pay £200 to Mrs B and improve its approach in future cases.

Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (20 004 864)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 11-Mar-2021

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the actions of the Council regarding her father’s, Mr C’s, financial assessment. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Brighton & Hove City Council (19 012 945)

Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 10-Mar-2021

Summary: Mr C complained about the way in which the Council arranged his mother’s placement, and how it carried out two safeguarding enquiries. He was also unhappy with aspects of the Council’s financial assessment and a delay in terminating his parent’s tenancy, which caused him distress. We found fault with the way the Council carried out the safeguarding enquiries and caused a delay in terminating the tenancy. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr C and pay a financial remedy for the distress he experienced.

Health Care Management Trust (20 005 028)

Statement Not upheld Residential care 10-Mar-2021

Summary: Ms X complained about the quality of care provided to her late mother at a care home. We have discontinued the investigation as Ms X’s sibling has started legal action against the care provider and this will consider matters raised in the complaint.

Lancashire County Council (20 011 597)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Assessment and care plan 10-Mar-2021

Summary: We will not investigate Ms C’s late complaint about the actions of the Council in 2018 and its decision to stop her care package in 2019. This is because Ms C could have come to us sooner if she was unhappy with the Council’s decision not to provide her with care.

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (19 004 532)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 10-Mar-2021

Summary: Mr X complained about poor care provided to his mother, Mrs Y, as part of a Council-commissioned care package. He also says a later safeguarding investigation was inadequate and the Council managed his complaint poorly. There was poor care which caused Mrs Y some distress. The Council will pay Mrs Y £250 to acknowledge the distress caused. The care provider, Sevacare, and the Council have acted to improve care services in future. The Council considered possible safeguarding issues appropriately but there was delay in its investigation of the concerns about poor care. The Council will pay Mr X and Mrs Y £100 each to remedy the frustration and uncertainty caused by the delay. Sevacare has apologised for its delay responding to Mr X’s complaint and that is an appropriate remedy.

Nottinghamshire County Council (19 015 380)

Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 10-Mar-2021

Summary: We upheld one of Mr X’s complaints. There was poor communication by the Council because it did not write to him to say it was commissioning an agency to do his care after stopping his direct payment. This caused Mr X avoidable distress for which the Council will apologise. There was no fault in transferring Mr X’s case from the mental health to adult social care team and no evidence a social worker verbally attacked one of Mr X’s personal assistants.

Oxfordshire County Council (19 018 745)

Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 10-Mar-2021

Summary: There is no evidence the Council failed to consider the safeguarding alert properly. Mr X had capacity to make his own decisions about his visitors and who managed his finances.

East Sussex County Council (20 002 657)

Statement Upheld Charging 09-Mar-2021

Summary: An advocate complained on behalf of Mr X about how the Council communicated changes to the charges for care it provides. There is no fault in how the Council communicated the changes including the decision not to carry out a face to face assessment. There was fault in respect of the setting up of a direct debit. The Council has apologised for the faults and credited an amount to Mr X’s account to acknowledge the time and trouble associated with this.

Staffordshire County Council (20 004 169)

Statement Not upheld Charging 09-Mar-2021

Summary: Miss X, Y’s legal deputy, complained on behalf of his estate that the Council failed to include various costs that should be regarded as Disability Related Expenditure in his financial assessment. She also questioned the Council’s calculation of Y’s Minimum Income Guarantee. We found no evidence of fault by the Council and for this reason we ended our investigation.