Wiltshire Council (20 009 518)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Residential care 09-Mar-2021

Summary: I will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a residential care provider when a resident became unwell during very hot weather conditions. This is because there is nothing that further investigation could add to the Care Provider’s previous investigation and response.

Leicestershire County Council (20 010 428)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 09-Mar-2021

Summary: We do not propose to investigate this complaint about the Council’s interactions with the complainant, including the initiation of a safeguarding enquiry. This is because we are unlikely to be able to evidence fault in the actions of the Council.

Sheffield City Council (19 015 370)

Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 08-Mar-2021

Summary: The Ombudsmen find there was an extensive avoidable delay in the Council assessing two young adults’ needs and producing a support plan for their care at home. This situation caused their mother significant avoidable stress which is an injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to recognise the injustice and to take steps to learn from the case and prevent recurrences.

Birmingham City Council (19 017 957)

Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 08-Mar-2021

Summary: Miss D complained about her contact with the Council about any adult social care support to which she may be entitled. She considered the Council did not provide the support she needed, was not clear in its explanations and did not handle her complaints properly. There was some fault by the Council but it did not cause significant injustice to Miss D.

Care UK Community Partnerships Limited (19 021 013)

Statement Upheld Residential care 08-Mar-2021

Summary: the complainant complained the Care Provider provided poor quality care for her mother at its Britten Court Lowestoft care home causing distress and risk of harm. The Care Provider says it learned from the complaint by improving staff practice and engaged with the proper agencies to report safeguarding issues. We found following several falls and some incidences of poor care the Care Provider caused injustice for which we have recommended a remedy.

Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council (20 002 685)

Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 08-Mar-2021

Summary: Fault by a Home Improvement Agency acting on behalf of the Council delayed Mr and Mrs X’s request for a Disabled Facilities Grant to adapt their home for their disabled son by at least 18 months. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment, and take action to improve its services.

Peterborough City Council (20 002 999)

Statement Not upheld Charging 08-Mar-2021

Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision that Mrs X deliberately deprived herself of capital with the intention of decreasing her liability for care charges. The Council also considered whether Mrs X’s daughter had a beneficial interest in one property without fault. The Council is willing to consider any further evidence the family has and has paid Mrs X’s care charges until the complaint is decided.

Anchor Hanover Group (20 004 086)

Statement Upheld Residential care 08-Mar-2021

Summary: Mrs X complained that Anchor Hanover Group (the Provider) failed to prevent her mother, Mrs Y, from falling and breaking her hip. We found fault with how the Provider assessed the risks to Mrs Y and how it handled Mrs X’s complaint. However, this did not contribute to Mrs Y’s fall, so did not cause the distress Mrs X claims. The Provider has apologised for the distress caused by how it handled Mrs X’s complaint and made service improvements. We consider this is a suitable remedy so we have completed our investigation.

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (20 004 221)

Statement Upheld Residential care 08-Mar-2021

Summary: Mrs F complained on behalf of her father Mr G, that the Care Provider took inadequate action to care for Mr G when he fell in a residential care home. We noted the Care Provider accepted some fault and has taken action to improve its procedures. But we consider it should pay Mrs F and Mr G £300 for the distress and uncertainty caused by the failings. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Mr & Mrs A Mangaliji (19 012 054)

Statement Upheld Charging 08-Mar-2021

Summary: The Care Provider’s contract is not in line with the Competition and Markets Authorities (CMA) guidance about fair contract terms. The Care Provider has agreed to review its contract to ensure it is in line with CMA guidance and to apologise to Mr C for the uncertainty caused by its actions.