London Borough of Hackney (24 003 887)

Report Upheld Transport 03-Apr-2025

Summary: Mrs D complained the Council refused to renew her Blue Badge. Our investigation has found fault in the advice given to staff who work at the Council’s assessment centre and assess Blue Badge applications.

Moors Park (Bishopsteignton) Limited (23 001 565)

Report Upheld Charging 18-Mar-2025

Summary: The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman investigated a complaint about care home fees charged to the complainant’s mother. We found Moors Park (Bishopsteignton) Limited: imposed additional charges for care provided over a weekly baseline limit of 25 hours, which was not set out in the contract; charged other residents additional fees without first amending their contracts;  This meant the care home caused the woman financial injustice and her son suffered time and trouble complaining.

West Sussex County Council (24 014 393)

Statement Upheld Charging 25-Feb-2025

Summary: We have upheld Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to charge her late mother for care. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Kingsley Healthcare (Birmingham) Limited (24 014 535)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Residential care 25-Feb-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a care provider allegedly failing to meet the complainant’s mother’s care needs while in residential care. The complainant says her mother was neglected and that her weight declined significantly leading to her being admitted to hospital where she later died. There is insufficient evidence of any of the care provider’s action falling short of the CQC’s Fundamental Standards for care, or Mrs Z being caused an injustice.

Birmingham City Council (24 015 748)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Assessment and care plan 25-Feb-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council and the Care Provider it commissioned when Mr Y returned home from hospital with a package of care. We could not achieve a meaningful outcome by investigating the matter further.

Staffordshire County Council (24 000 363)

Statement Not upheld Charging 25-Feb-2025

Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it has considered Ms A’s disability related expenditure and financial contribution for her care.

London Borough of Havering (24 003 386)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 25-Feb-2025

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council and its commissioned care provider failed to deliver proper care and support for her relative’s needs or finances before they passed away, affecting their wellbeing. The Council accepted fault and waived half of the outstanding care fees. The Council agreed to our additional recommendations to apologise to Mrs X and make a symbolic payment to recognise her outstanding injustice of frustration and uncertainty.

Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (24 005 725)

Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 25-Feb-2025

Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s decision that Mr Y’s needs can be met in a shared supported living arrangement. The Council reviewed Mr Y’s care and support plan and provided funding and services to meet his needs while a long-term project is being built. And if the project falls through, the Council has told Mr Y’s family that it will commission a placement out of borough. This was in line with the duty to meet Mr Y’s eligible needs.

East Sussex County Council (24 006 248)

Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 25-Feb-2025

Summary: Ms A complained the Council reduced the number of hours of care it pays for without explaining this to her. She says her needs had not changed so she does not understand the cut. The Council is not at fault, as it has made a decision it is entitled to make.

WCG Riverside Care Home Limited (24 007 541)

Statement Upheld Residential care 25-Feb-2025

Summary: Miss X complained about the quality of care provided to her mother at the care home. There were some faults with the care provided as the care provider failed to change Mrs Y’s bedding, left a dirty pad in Mrs Y’s room, did not always record when it checked Mrs Y’s incontinence pad and fingernails, and it did not complete a choking risk assessment despite Mrs Y’s tendency to put things in her mouth. It also failed to fully follow its complaints procedure. The care provider has already taken action to address the faults with the quality of care. It should apologise and make a payment to Miss X to acknowledge the frustration and uncertainty she was caused. It should also remind staff to respond in writing to formal complaints.