New adult social care complaint decisions

View online A weekly update on adult social care complaint decisions Please note: our decisions are published three months 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. Thurrock Council (19 006 382) Summary: Mr B complains the Council delayed in resolving issues over the suitability of his accommodation and in moving him to a different placement. He also complains the placement the Council moved him to was not suitable. Mr B says this negatively impacted his mental wellbeing. At this stage, the Ombudsman finds fault in how the Council responded to concerns about Mr B's accommodation. We also find fault in how the Council managed Mr B's move to alternative accommodation. London Borough of Camden (19 009 204) Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained on behalf their son, Mr F, about the Council's handling and administration of his direct payments. The Council was not at fault for how it decided to ask for evidence of expenditure to make a back payment of funds for the period June 2016 and July 2017. It was also not at fault for its decision to ask for repayment of £7775 for expenditure outside the direct payment agreement, or for restricting how Mr and Mrs X can use the funds. The Council was at fault for failing to refer Mr F to its support services after it agreed to do so in January 2018. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr and Mrs X and Mr F for the uncertainty this caused. It also agreed to contact Mr and Mrs X to ensure Mr F is receiving the appropriate support from services in line with his needs. Leicester City Council (19 016 949) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X's complaint that a Council officer pushed or elbowed her during a visit to assess her care needs. An allegation of assault is for the police. Investigation will not add to the information held or result in the outcome Ms X wants. London Borough of Redbridge (19 017 309) Summary: The Council failed to complete a proper assessment for a Blue Badge or provide enough information for the complainant to properly appeal. The Council has agreed to apologise for these failures, arrange a new assessment, and make procedural changes. Colten Care (1993) Limited (20 000 790) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B's complaint about care provided to her late father, Mr C, by his care provider. This is because it is unlikely any further investigation would be able to make a different finding to that already provided to Mrs B or of the kind Mrs B wants. Oxfordshire County Council (19 004 582) Summary: The Council failed to carry out timely reviews of Mrs X's husband's support plan. As a result of this, the Council did not identify sooner that Mrs X was not taking the respite which it had identified she needed. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs X and take action to prevent similar failings in future. Bristol City Council (19 013 945) Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his father, Mr Y, about a safeguarding enquiry carried out by the Council. The Ombudsman found there was some fault in the Council's initial safeguarding enquiry and record keeping. There was no fault in the outcome of the enquiry. Leeds City Council (18 006 125) Summary: Mr X complains about the decision of his daughter's care provider to withdraw her residential placement. He complains Leeds City Council was powerless to hold the care provider to account. He also complains about the Council's handling of his complaint. The Ombudsmen finds fault with the Council. We have recommended Leeds Clinical Commissioning Group, as commissioner of continuing healthcare, apologise to Mr X and his daughter, and to pay them a financial remedy. Suffolk County Council (18 014 942) Summary: Mr F complained about what happened when his mother, Mrs G, was discharged from hospital. The Ombudsmen find fault with the way the Council and Trust communicated with Mr F and each other about discharge plans, including a continuing healthcare checklist for Mrs G. The Ombudsmen also find fault with the way the Trust handled Mr F's complaint. The Trust and Council have agreed to take action to remedy the injustice caused. Morris & Co (19 011 012) Summary: Mr B complained about the care given to his late mother, Mrs C during a two-week respite stay in one of the Care Provider's nursing homes. We find the record of significant weight loss should have been investigated at the time and further explanation provided about the medication. The Care Provider has agreed to pay Mr B £250 and improve its procedures for the future. Routes Healthcare (North) Ltd (19 014 031) Summary: Mrs X complains Routes Healthcare (North) Ltd, failed to meet her father's care needs. There is not enough evidence to say its actions caused injustice to Mr Y. Bupa Care Homes (GL) Limited (20 000 232) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the care provision he received for seven weeks in a care home in 2017. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons for the Ombudsman to exercise discretion to investigate it now. Avery Homes Moston Limited (19 008 895) Summary: The complainant says the Care Provider did not properly consider offering care within its dedicated dementia unit but gave notice ending care when private funding stopped thus failing to prevent a distressing move. The Care Provider said it offered care for as long as its service met the resident's care needs and ended care when it found it could no longer meet those needs. It liaised with the local authority and medical teams in deciding the care it could give and helped with the move from its home. The Ombudsman finds the Care Provider caused injustice through failures in communication. Ablecare Homes Limited (19 009 479) Summary: Mrs C complained about the Care Provider's failure to act when she experienced racist behaviour from another resident of the care home and said it should not have packed her belongings into black bags. The Care Provider delayed taking action, failed to follow its safeguarding policy in 2018, kept unclear records and failed to consult the family before packing Mrs C's belongings into black bags. Those failures caused Mrs C distress and created uncertainty about whether the situation could have been resolved if the Care Provider had acted promptly. An apology, payment to Mrs C and her daughter and training for staff is satisfactory remedy. London Borough of Havering (19 013 124) Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to properly explain why it refused Mr B's freedom pass application. The reason it gave (that Mr B did not live in the area) was incorrect, and it failed to explain its actual reason (that Mr B did not meet its learning disability criteria). The Council has agreed to write to Mr B's mother and explain its decision. It has also agreed to make a payment of £150 to recognise the uncertainty its handling of Mr B's application caused her. Cumbria County Council (19 013 467) Summary: The Ombudsman has found fault in the way the Council decided not to complete a needs assessment. While that fault did not cause Mr or Mrs C an injustice, the Council has agreed to take action to prevent similar problems occurring for other service users. London Borough of Merton (19 013 859) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly plan for her son, F's transition from children into adult care services. The Council was at fault. It failed to forward plan for F's transition to adult care services in line with statutory guidance. This did not cause F a significant injustice as the services were in place before his 18th birthday. The failure to plan did however cause Mrs X distress, uncertainty and time and trouble. The Council agreed to pay Mrs X £150 to recognise this. It also agreed to review its procedures to prevent recurrence of the fault. Hertfordshire County Council (19 018 315) Summary: Ms X complains the Council did not facilitate her, or her mother's, contact with her aunt. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint further as the Council has agreed to make an application to the Court of Protection providing contact is still in the best interests of Ms X's aunt. London Borough of Bexley (19 018 877) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about an application for a Blue Badge because it is unlikely he would find fault by the Council. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (19 012 783) Summary: The Council is unable to evidence it clearly explained its charging policy for day services to Mr X. Wiltshire Council (19 013 073) Summary: The Council wrongly applied a property disregard to a temporary residential care stay. It also failed to act promptly to concerns about Mrs Y's mental health and wrongly advised a care home to apply for an order depriving her of her liberty. The Council failed to deal with a complaint from Mrs Y's son properly. Medway Council (19 016 577) Summary: There was no fault by the Council in its financial assessment or in the information it gave about benefits and charging. Derbyshire County Council (19 021 063) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B's complaint about his uncle's, Mr C's, respite care provider. This is because the Council has apologised Mr B had a negative experience of Mr C's respite care provider and offered to reimburse the cost of the missing items of clothing. The Ombudsman is satisfied an apology and offer of reimbursement of the cost of the additionally purchased clothing remedies the injustice caused by the fault. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (19 021 186) Summary: Mr B complains the Council failed to deal properly with his father's financial assessment for residential accommodation charges. The Council accepts it made mistakes and took too long to resolve the financial assessment. It has waived £250 of the father's charge but has provided no remedy for the distress caused to Mr B and the time and trouble it has put him to. It needs to correct that. Blackpool Borough Council (20 000 191) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B's complaint about the Council's role in safeguarding of her mother in 2018. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and there is no good reason to investigate the complaint so long after the original events and where much of the evidence has already been considered in court. H C One Ltd (20 000 453) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs C's complaint about the end of life care her late mother, Mrs D received from her care provider. This is because it is unlikely any further investigation will provide Mrs C with a different outcome to that she has received. Any injustice caused to Mrs D by the actions of the care provider cannot be remedied now. We look at individual complaints about local public services and all registerable social care providers in England. We remedy injustice and share learning from investigations to improve services. When we find a council or care provider has done something wrong, we recommend how it should put it right. We are free to use and make our decisions independently. Find out more about us at www.lgo.org.uk Manage preferences or unsubscribe Contact us

This email was sent to ooseims.archieves@blogger.com using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf of: The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman · 53-55 Butts Road · Coventry · CV1 3BH