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.

Oxfordshire County Council (24 007 673)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 11-Mar-2025

Summary: Miss X complained about the care the Council arranged for her brother, Mr Y and how the Council investigated safeguarding concerns about the Care Home. There was no fault in how the Care Home cared for Mr Y. There was some fault in how the Council carried out its safeguarding enquiries, but this did not affect the outcome. The Council has already taken steps to improve how it investigates safeguarding concerns.

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (24 009 693)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 11-Mar-2025

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s investigation into safeguarding concerns regarding his adult son Mr Y. The Council was at fault for the delay in completing the safeguarding investigation, for poor communication with Mr X and for not keeping Mr Y at the centre of the investigation. This meant Mr Y was stopped from visiting Mr X for longer than necessary and caused Mr X distress and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and make payments to Mr X and Mr Y. It has agreed to remind officers of the importance of effective communication in safeguarding investigations.

London Borough of Croydon (24 012 215)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 11-Mar-2025

Summary: Mr A complained about the way his aunt, Mrs B, was cared for after she left hospital. The organisations wanted her to go into a nursing home and made it difficult for her to return home. There were problems with communication and equipment delivery. We will not investigate this complaint because the Trust accepted it made mistakes and apologised to Mr A and has improved its service. We consider this to be a suitable remedy.

North Yorkshire Council (24 003 377)

Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 11-Mar-2025

Summary: Miss X complains about the handling of her application for a disabled facilities grant. Miss X says it does not meet her child’s needs, and the Council has refused to consider new information. We find fault with the Council for delaying confirming the funds, and for its complaint handling. The Council has agreed to pay Miss X a distress payment and carry out service improvements.

Agincare UK Limited (24 006 212)

Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 10-Mar-2025

Summary: We upheld Mr X’s complaint. Complaint handling was not in line with our expectations, record-keeping was poor and staff conduct in a meeting unprofessional. This caused avoidable distress. The Care Provider has accepted our recommendations for a further apology, a symbolic payment and actions for it to take to improve its service and minimise the chance of recurrence.

London Borough of Lambeth (24 014 664)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 10-Mar-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of domiciliary care as we cannot add to the Council’s investigation.

Cera Care Operations Limited (24 016 392)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 10-Mar-2025

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his wife’s care provider refusing to answer his messages and emails, and about the care provider changing his wife’s care team and call times. This is because his complaint can be considered by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

Cheshire East Council (24 003 207)

Statement Upheld Charging 10-Mar-2025

Summary: Mrs Y complained the Council failed to properly assess her mother, Mrs X’s, care needs and finances in August 2022, and failed to then commission adequate care. She says the Council also over charged Mrs X for residential care. The Council failed to follow up on Mrs X’s domiciliary care assessment and follow the proper process to charge a top up on Mrs X’s residential care costs. The Council has offered a suitable payment for Mrs X’s domiciliary care. It should apologise and make a payment to Mrs Y for the uncertainty caused.