Hampshire County Council (24 011 697)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Transport 17-Dec-2024

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue her with a blue badge. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process when determining her application to warrant us investigating.

Cambridgeshire County Council (24 012 265)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Assessment and care plan 17-Dec-2024

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s adult social care and housing involvement with her son. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to accept her complaint without her son’s consent.

Lincolnshire County Council (23 012 160)

Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 17-Dec-2024

Summary: There is no evidence that the Council ignored Ms X’s correspondence although the volume of contacts was difficult to manage. The care plan was produced in a timely manner which took account of some previous complaints that care plans had been rushed. Ms X successfully appealed the number of hours allocated.

London Borough of Wandsworth (23 012 555)

Statement Upheld Charging 17-Dec-2024

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his aunt, Miss Y’s finances. We found fault in the Council’s failure to send a deputyship referral. We also found fault with the Council’s communication about financial information and record keeping. This caused Miss Y’s family frustration and uncertainty. The Council will apologise for this and make service improvements.

Cornwall Council (24 002 678)

Statement Not upheld Charging 17-Dec-2024

Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council has reached its decision about the disability related expenditure allowance for Mr X or explained the situation to Mr and Mrs A.

London Borough of Enfield (24 003 200)

Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 17-Dec-2024

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in considering his request for his mother (Y’s) residential care home fees to be paid through a Deferred Payment Agreement (DPA). He also complained of the Council’s poor communication in relation to this. The Council was at fault because it took 10 months to issue the DPA contract. The Council should make a payment to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty this caused. However, there is no fault in how the Council communicated with Mr X regarding the DPA.

South Gloucestershire Council (24 003 492)

Statement Upheld Charging 17-Dec-2024

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly calculated how much his wife, Mrs X, should pay towards her care fees and delayed issuing him a refund after it later decided she did not need to pay full costs. The Council was at fault for failing to act on a letter Mr X sent to it. This caused him frustration and uncertainty The Council also delayed issuing a later refund to Mr X, which caused him frustration and meant he was unable to earn interest on the sum. To remedy Mr X’s injustice, the Council will apologise and pay him interest on the refunded sum.

Kingston Upon Hull City Council (24 001 321)

Statement Not upheld Charging 17-Dec-2024

Summary: There is evidence that consideration was given to Mrs X’s eligibility for CHC funding while she was in hospital and subsequently. The first four weeks of her residential placement were funded by the NHS but afterwards she was responsible for funding her own care.

Leeds City Council (24 001 390)

Statement Upheld Charging 17-Dec-2024

Summary: Mr X complained the Council had started to charge him for transport services although he believed he was eligible for s117 aftercare and should not pay charges. The Council has provided evidence he was not eligible for free aftercare. Following an investigation into Mr X’s complaint about the unreliability of the transport service, and his decision to arrange alternative provision, the Council has now waived all charges. The complaint will not be investigated further as there is no outstanding injustice.

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 001 464)

Statement Upheld Residential care 17-Dec-2024

Summary: Mr X complained about the way a Council-funded care home assessed his mother’s (Mrs X) dependency levels. We have found fault with the Council (as the responsible body) for not ensuring the dependency scores reflected Mrs X’s circumstances. This caused Mr X to pay higher top-up fees and caused avoidable distress. We have recommended the Council apologise and pay a financial remedy.