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.

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.

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.

Radcliffe Care Home Ltd (20 011 263)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Residential care 08-Mar-2021

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the hairdressing charges incurred by his late mother Mrs X during her stay at a care home. The care provider did not fail in its duty of care to Mrs X by not preventing her having this service, because there is not enough evidence to show Mrs X did not have capacity to make decisions to spend her own money on the hairdressing she received.

Staffordshire County Council (19 012 070)

Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 08-Mar-2021

Summary: There no fault in the Council’s assessment of Mr B’s care and support needs. But, it was fault for the Council to make reinstatement of payments conditional, in the knowledge that Mr B was getting into a large debt. To remedy the injustice the Council should reach a decision on his direct payment amount and care charges.

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.

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.