A weekly update on adult social care complaint decisions

Please note: our decisions are published six weeks after they are issued to councils, care providers and the person who has made the complaint. The cases below reflect the caselaw and guidance available at the time of issue and the individual circumstances of each case.

London Borough of Enfield (25 005 018)

Summary: Mrs Y complains about the Council’s handling of her father’s (Mr X) discharge from hospital into residential care and related matters. We found the Council to be at fault. It gave Mrs Y incorrect information and took too long to carry out an inaccurate financial assessment. This caused significant distress, uncertainty and frustration. To remedy this injustice, the Council agreed to apologise, make an additional symbolic payment to Mrs Y and take action to correct the financial assessment and reimburse Mrs Y. It will also take action to improve its service.

Bath and North East Somerset Council (25 007 077)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council stopped Mr Z’s funding for activities. There was fault by the Council. It wrongly recorded Mr X and Mr Z agreed with the revised care and support plan and did not share a copy with Mr X. This was fault causing avoidable confusion. The Council will apologise and amend Mr Z’s care and support plan to record the areas of outstanding disagreement. It will also provide Mr X with a copy of the revised plan.

Staffordshire County Council (25 007 222)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to manage his mother, Ms Y’s, finances while she was in a nursing home and did not stop payments from her bank account. He says this distressed him and meant the Council wrongly charged him for Ms Y’s care costs after her death. The Council was at fault. It delayed making a deputyship referral and was late responding to Mr X’s complaint. This caused uncertainty and frustrated Mr X. The Council has agreed to apologise.

Cumberland Council (25 007 438)

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in how it handled the care needs of Mrs X’s daughter. It regularly reviewed her care and support needs and it considered whether her mental capacity meant it should take action under rules that can see restrictions placed on a person’s liberty.

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (25 010 609)

Summary: Mr B complained NHS Cheshire and Merseyside Integrated Care Board (the ICB) refused to either assess his father’s eligibility for NHS Continuing Healthcare in hospital or provide him with interim NHS funding for the nursing home placement he was discharged to. And he complained about Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council’s (the Council’s) decision to charge his father, Mr G, for his initial care and support at the nursing home. We find fault with the ICB’s approach. It relied on aspects of national guidance but ignored other parts. Without this fault it would have funded Mr G’s care from the point of discharge. We also found fault in the ICB’s and the Council’s handling of Mr B’s complaints. The ICB and the Council have agreed to actions to address the injustice.

London Borough of Bexley (25 012 615)

Summary: The Council was at fault for delay in assessing Mr Y’s needs and in progressing his move to supported living. It also communicated poorly with Mr X, Mr Y’s father, about the move and associated costs. The Council has already refunded Mr X for payments he made. The Council will also apologise, pay Mr X a symbolic payment and make service improvements.

London Borough of Harrow (25 026 022)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s Blue Badge application and appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault, in how the Council considered the matter, to justify investigating.

West Sussex County Council (25 026 869)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a mental health crisis team. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate.

East Sussex County Council (25 030 109)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Miss X’s Blue Badge application and appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault, in how the Council considered the matter, to justify investigating.

Cambridgeshire County Council (25 030 545)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s Blue Badge application and appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault, in how the Council considered the matter, to justify investigating.

London Borough of Islington (25 030 547)

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (26 002 372)

Gloucestershire County Council (25 007 972)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to carry out a full and proper assessment of his mother’s care needs. He also complained the Council failed to ensure his mother had appropriate home adaptations available when she moved into a new home, and that it closed its case prematurely. Mr X says the Council’s actions caused significant avoidable distress to his mother and to himself. We found some fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to provide an apology and a symbolic payment and to produce guidance for its staff.

Luton Borough Council (25 010 014)

Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not arrange suitable care for Mr Y after his hospital discharge and communicated poorly. She says this negatively impacted Mr Y’s recovery. We find no fault with the care arranged by the Council. We find fault with the Council’s communication which caused injustice. We are satisfied the Council’s actions have remedied the injustice to Mr Y and Ms X.

Wiltshire Council (25 019 192)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment as part of her request for a Disabled Facilities Grant. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement.

Wiltshire Council (25 020 758)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to reconsider care charges made for a person from 2021 to their death in 2023. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s action in refusing to do so to warrant investigation.

Gedling Village Ltd (25 027 269)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Care Provider restricting Miss X’s visits to a care home as further investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome.

Central Bedfordshire Council (25 029 787)

Birmingham City Council (25 030 283)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council responded to safeguarding concerns in relation to her late mother, Mrs Y’s care. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with how the Council made its decision and we could not add to its investigation.

City of Doncaster Council (25 030 999)

Somerset Council (24 016 914)

Summary: Mrs Y complains about aftercare planning by a Council, NHS Trust and Integrated Care Board for her son, Mr X, under the Mental Health Act. Based on current evidence I have not found fault by the organisations.

Birmingham City Council (24 020 166)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council communicated with Ms X and responded to her reports of antisocial behaviour. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, part of the complaint is premature, and complaints about data matters are best considered and decided by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Catherine Lodge Residential Home Limited (24 022 043)

Summary: Ms X complained about the conduct of staff at the Care Home where her Grandmother, Mrs Y, was a resident. She complained the Care Home refused to let Mrs Y’s private carer visit her and it ended her contract with no warning. She said this negatively impacted Mrs Y’s care and caused distress for the family. We cannot investigate this complaint because the Care Home has now closed and so we cannot achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Blackburn with Darwen Council (25 005 441)

Summary: The Council was not at fault for seeking new information to ensure planned adaptations under a Disabled Facilities Grant were necessary and appropriate. The Council was at fault for the way it handled Mrs X’s complaint, causing confusion and uncertainty over what complaints it had responded to. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X.

Medway Council (25 009 676)

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council handled her husband Mr X’s care costs. We find the Council at fault for not appropriately checking figures and information when calculating how much Mr X should have contributed to his care costs, and for inadequate complaint handling. This caused Mrs X distress in the form of uncertainty, frustration and time and trouble. The Council agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and complete a new calculation to remedy the injustice.

London Borough of Ealing (25 021 357)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of his wife’s blue badge application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (25 025 896)

Summary: Mr C complains on behalf of his partner, Mr D in relation to his care and support at a care home funded by the Council. Mr C said that faults in medication, lost property and staff attitude led to Mr D’s deterioration and distress for Mr C. We will not investigate this complaint as the care home has admitted fault and taken action to prevent it happening again.

London Borough of Hounslow (25 027 478)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s Freedom Pass and Blue Badge applications. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault, in how the Council considered the matter, to justify investigating. Also, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Cambridgeshire County Council (25 008 802)

Summary: The Council was at fault for not consulting with Mrs X about the outcome of a safeguarding enquiry regarding the care her mother, the late Mrs Y, received in a care home. The Council has apologised to Mrs X and said it will make service improvements. This is an appropriate remedy for the distress caused. The Council also failed to consult with the Ambulance Service during the safeguarding enquiry, but this did not cause an injustice to Mrs X.

Devon County Council (25 014 302)

Summary: There was fault by the Council because it failed to arrange care and support for two weeks when Mr X was in a hotel. The delay was not in line with the duty to meet Mr X’s needs and caused avoidable distress. The Council has apologised for the delay which is a partial remedy. It will issue a further apology and make Mr X a symbolic payment.

Midshires Care Limited (25 015 897)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of care provided to Mr Y and the way the Care Provider communicated with his family. The Care Provider has accepted fault and provided remedies in line with our guidance. It has also taken steps to improve its service. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not achieve a different outcome.

Norfolk County Council (25 017 527)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his social care account and poor complaint handling, including the absence of any reasonable adjustments during its complaint investigation. A further investigation is unlikely to achieve anything worthwhile.

Cheshire West & Chester Council (25 019 321)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about direct payments and an alleged failure to make reasonable adjustments. This is because the complaint is late and it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council.

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (25 023 518)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to recover outstanding care charges from Mrs Y’s estate. The complaint is late without good reason to investigate it now. There is also not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to recover the outstanding care charges.

Wiltshire Council (26 000 456)

London Borough of Camden (25 020 601)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s contact with the Council and its complaint handling. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider it now.

Kent County Council (25 010 710)

Summary: The Council was at fault for reducing Ms Y’s care package without carrying out a proper and up-to-date reassessment of her needs. It failed to adequately assess and evidence her night-time support needs, did not complete a clear risk assessment, and made its decision while key uncertainties remained.

Suffolk County Council (24 021 093)

Summary: There was fault by the Council in the failure to review Mr Y’s direct payment and to review his care and support plan. The Council has apologised, written off part of a debt and not reclaimed unauthorised expenses. This is a partial remedy for the avoidable distress. There was also fault by the Council in its failure to offer a carer’s assessment to Mrs X in October 2023 and to follow up her request for respite care. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to recognise the distress.

London Borough of Hackney (24 019 183)

Summary: Ms X complained about a care home funded by a council and integrated care board at which her sister, Ms Y, was a resident. Ms X said poor care and communication led to distress for her. We will not investigate this complaint as it is unlikely we would add to the remedial action which the Home has already carried out.

London Borough of Hackney (24 004 207)

Summary: Ms A complains about the care provided to her sister at Bridgeside Lodge Care Home (the Care Home). We will not investigate this complaint because the Care Home is willing to reinvestigate. There is nothing more we can achieve by looking at the complaint before the Care Home completes its investigation.


This email was sent to ooseims.archieves@blogger.com using Granicus Communications Cloud on behalf of: The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman ·5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT

Food Blog

Thursday, July 9, 2026

New adult social care complaint decisions

A weekly update on adult social care complaint decisions

No comments:

Post a Comment