Portsmouth City Council (24 015 803)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 04-Mar-2025

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the care provided to his mother by her care home and about the Council failing to communicate with him effectively. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint.

Community Integrated Care (CIC) (24 014 005)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 03-Mar-2025

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the actions of one of the Care Provider’s employees, This is because the matter complained about has not caused Mr X any significant personal injustice which is serious enough to warrant an investigation. Also a further investigation by this office could not add to the response the Care Provider has already given on the matter.

Assini Limited (24 018 062)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 26-Feb-2025

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the actions of the Care Provider’s employee. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is not about actions that involve, or are connected to, the provision of adult social care.

London Borough of Haringey (24 018 643)

Statement Upheld Other 25-Feb-2025

Summary: Mrs Z complained about the Council’s failure to communicate with Miss Y as a manager of the agency providing care to Mr X and to keep to its commitments. We found fault with the Council for its unsatisfactory communication with Miss Y and for its failing to keep to its commitments. The Council’s fault caused injustice to Miss Y. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss Y and to refund the money paid by the care agency towards Mr X’s expenses.

Coventry City Council (24 004 090)

Statement Upheld Other 21-Feb-2025

Summary: Ms X complained about failings by the Council’s Adult Social Care service to support both her and her adult son, Mr Y. We found the Council at fault for failing to follow-up on respite care, and for failing to properly consider what support it could offer when Mr Y’s behaviour escalated. The Council agreed to provide a symbolic financial remedy for the distress this caused. The Council was also at fault over the advice it gave on emergency accommodation, but this did not cause significant injustice.

London Borough of Ealing (24 013 476)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 20-Feb-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a former employee of a Council-commissioned service. Complaints about their actions while employed by the Service are late and there is not a good reason for Mr X’s delay in bringing them to us. Events after the person left employment by the Service are not an administrative function of the Council, and we have no power to investigate them. In any event, we could not say any fault by the Service caused the injustice Mr X alleges.

Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (24 019 639)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 20-Feb-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a former employee of a Council-commissioned service. Complaints about their actions while employed by the Service are late and there is not a good reason for Mr X’s delay in bringing them to us. Events after the person left employment by the Service are not an administrative function of the Council, and we have no power to investigate them. In any event, we could not say any fault by the Service caused the injustice Mr X alleges.

Westminster City Council (24 019 640)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 20-Feb-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a former employee of a Council-commissioned service. Complaints about their actions while employed by the Service are late and there is not a good reason for Mr X’s delay in bringing them to us. Events after the person left employment by the Service are not an administrative function of the Council, and we have no power to investigate them. In any event, we could not say any fault by the Service caused the injustice Mr X alleges.

Birmingham City Council (24 008 625)

Statement Not upheld Other 20-Feb-2025

Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it conducted assessments of Mr Y care and accommodation needs, and his capacity to decide about contact with Mr X.

Lancashire County Council (24 009 282)

Statement Upheld Other 20-Feb-2025

Summary: Mr X complained the Council stopped communicating with him in relation to his late aunt, Ms Y, without explaining its reasons why. The Council was at fault. It did not write to Mr X and tell him it would communicate with him via email. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X for the frustration and uncertainty it caused him.