New adult social care complaint decisions

View online 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.   Dorset Council (20 003 917) Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to deal properly with the charges for his late father's residential care, including the appeal over his financial assessment, leaving them out of pocket and preventing them from making informed decisions about his care. The Council accepts there was room for improvement with some of its communications and has apologised. However, there was no fault affecting the Council's decision on what Mr X's father should pay. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (19 016 793) Summary: The Council failed to properly consider whether Mr X's mother needed access to the kitchen when it carried out work to his property under a disabled facilities grant. The Council later carried out work to the property without consulting Mr X which meant it was not possible to create suitable access. The Council should pay Mr X £500 to acknowledge the impact this had on him and his family. Daventry District Council (19 017 815) Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's handling of her application for a Disabled Facilities Grant between 2017 and 2020. The Ombudsman has found fault because the Council took too long to progress the adaptations for the benefit of her disabled son. This caused frustration, distress and inconvenience. To remedy this injustice the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X and review its practices. West Sussex County Council (19 020 400) Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's decision that his mother deliberately deprived herself of capital to avoid care costs. We find no fault in the way the Council reached its decision. Lancashire County Council (19 021 178) Summary: Mrs Y complained the Council carried out a flawed financial assessment of her son which failed to take account of his relevant disability related expenditure. She also complained it sent invoices to the wrong address delaying her ability to appeal. The Council was not at fault. Liverpool City Council (20 005 422) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about alleged staff rudeness and abuse at a care home. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable through further investigation of the issues relating to the complainant, and she does not have authority to complain on behalf of her brother. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (20 006 173) Summary: We will not investigate Miss B's complaint that the provider of care to her mother agreed to investigate her complaint about a care worker but it failed to do so. This is because it is unlikely we would add anything significant to the care provider's investigation or achieve significantly more for Miss B. Essex County Council (19 018 312) Summary: Mr C complained the Council has failed to provide him with the care and support he needs. We did not find fault with regards to the Council's actions. Leeds City Council (20 004 980) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the standard of care in a supported living residence. This is because there is nothing that further investigation could add to the previous investigations by the Care Provider and the Council. Suffolk County Council (19 021 118) Summary: Mrs B complains on behalf of her daughter, Ms C, that the Council delayed in: reviewing her support plan; telling her the outcome of a financial assessment; and explaining why she had to contribute towards the cost of her services when she had not done so before. She also says there was fault in the way the Council dealt with Ms C's disability-related expenditure (DRE). We find the Council delayed in completing a review of Ms C's support plan and a financial re-assessment and in informing Mrs B of the outcome and explaining why Ms C had to pay a contribution. But this did not cause Ms C a significant injustice. There was no fault in the way the Council dealt with Ms C's DRE. Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (20 005 494) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X's complaint about alleged criminal behaviour against her when she lived in Council provided temporary accommodation from 2006 onwards. The complaint lies outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction because it is late. The Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints about crime. London Borough of Brent (20 005 887) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B's complaint about the Council's decision not to investigate her concerns about her care provider as a safeguarding matter. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the Council's actions to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. London Borough of Enfield (20 006 459) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the Council charging his son, Mr C for care he either did not receive or did not know he should pay for. This is because the Council has now waivered the charge so there is no unremedied injustice for the Ombudsman to investigate. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (19 005 649) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about delays by the Council's Occupational Therapy service and its alleged liability for privately arranged works carried out by the complainant. This is because it is unlikely we could add to the previous investigation by the Council. Westminster Homecare Ltd (19 012 003) Summary: Mrs B complains on behalf of her stepmother, Mrs Y. She says carers did not complete their full allocated hours caring for Mrs Y. Mrs B says carers often arrived late or left early but the Provider still charged for the full hours. The Ombudsman finds fault in the times and durations of visits to Mrs Y and in how it responded to non-payment of fees. Chorley Borough Council (19 012 613) Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council did not arrange or fund adaptations to their kitchen that meet their needs. The Council is at fault for failing to fit soft-cornered kitchen doors after initially deciding Mr and Mrs X needed them. However, this did not cause Mr and Mrs X significant injustice. City of York Council (19 012 757) Summary: Mr C complained to us about the way in which the Council carried out his financial assessment. He said the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments during the process and failed to properly deal with some of his disability related expenses (DREs). Mr C says this made him distressed and resulted in an assessed contribution he cannot afford. The Ombudsman found fault with regards to the Council's actions, which caused an injustice. The Council has agreed to reconsider part of his expenses and share the lessons learned with its staff. Chorley Borough Council (19 014 385) Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint that it unfairly calculated the complainants' contribution towards the cost of disability adaptations in their home. North Yorkshire County Council (19 016 669) Summary: Mr X complained the Council prevented him from bringing his mother, Mrs B, home after she was discharged from hospital to a care home. Mr X also complains about the way the Council dealt with a safeguarding allegation made against him. There was no fault in how the Council carried out the safeguarding investigation. The Council provided incorrect information to Mr X about 'approved' care providers but this did not cause an injustice. The Council acted without fault when it made a best interest decision that Mrs B would be best cared for in a care home. There was some delay in authorising Mrs B's deprivation of liberty safeguard applications but this did not cause an injustice. Cornwall Council (19 017 687) Summary: There was fault in the way the Council communicated with Ms C about a debt in April 2017 and failed to carry out a yearly review in April 2018. This partly contributed to Ms C not knowing that she owed a debt. The Council has already apologised for the fault and put in service improvements. These actions have adequately addressed the concerns the Ombudsman has identified. Somerset County Council (19 018 920) Summary: Mr B complains that the Council has wrongly refused to fund night-time support. This has increased his anxiety because he worries about having a seizure at night. There is no fault by the Council. It properly considered all the information it had and kept Mr B's situation under review. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (19 018 924) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly investigate allegations made by his carers that he behaved in an inappropriate manner. The Council is not at fault. Peepal Care Limited (19 019 828) Summary: There is evidence of fault by the Care Provider. It failed to properly vet all home carer workers before introducing them to Mrs Y and failed to ensure the care workers it recruited had the necessary skills and experience. It also breached Mrs Y's privacy in its discussion with a third party not related to her care. Norfolk County Council (19 020 541) Summary: Mrs X complained a Council care home banned her from visiting her grandmother stating her grandmother did not wish to see her. Mrs X says this decision was up for review in December 2019, but the Council's stance has not changed. There was fault in the way the care home banned Mrs X but this has not caused Mrs X an injustice as her grandmother consented to the ban once she had been assessed to have capacity. Dorset Council (20 004 294) Summary: The Council failed to properly consider Mrs X's medical condition when assessing her application for a blue badge. Four Seasons (DFK) Limited (19 005 856) Summary: Mr X complains about the actions of a care home. He says the care home did not contact him when his mother died, did not complete an inventory of his mother's belongings when she entered the care home, and that money was taken from his mother's bank account. He also complains about the care home's complaint handling. The Ombudsman finds some fault with the care home. We have made some recommendations. Nottinghamshire County Council (19 013 173) Summary: The complainant, Ms B, said the Council was wrong to decide her mother-in-law, Mrs D, deprived herself of assets to avoid paying care fees. Ms B says the actions of the Council has caused Mrs D and the family avoidable distress and worry. The Council was entitled to pursue the debt, but the Ombudsman found fault in the way the Council decided to pursue Mrs D for the debt. the Council has agreed with the Ombudsman's recommendations and will assess Mrs D's capacity to make specific financial decisions, consider her best interests if necessary and decide who is best placed to manage her finances. The Council will also remind its staff of the importance of completing mental capacity assessments when there is doubt about a person's capacity to make specific decisions. Lincolnshire County Council (19 018 919) Summary: Miss H complains the Council reduced her direct payment, did not provide her with copies of reviews and was unreasonably seeking repayment of the direct payment. We uphold the complaint. The Council has accepted faults in the way it communicated with Miss H. The Council's proposed personal remedy and action plan are suitable responses. Promedica24 UK Limited (19 018 993) Summary: The care provider did not ensure care workers with the right skills and experience were employed to support Mr X. As a result he became distressed and Mrs X had to terminate her contract with the agency. London Borough of Havering (20 000 090) Summary: The Ombudsmen are satisfied a Trust, Council and CCG provided largely appropriate care to an elderly woman with complex care and housing needs. However, the Ombudsmen find fault with the initial support provided by the Council's housing team. This caused the woman's son avoidable frustration and distress. The Ombudsmen also find the Council contributed to the woman's delayed discharge from hospital as it failed to clearly establish her housing needs. Northamptonshire County Council (20 005 231) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the behaviour of two employees at a care home where the complainant's mother lives. This is because it is unlikely that further investigation would lead to a different outcome or enable the Ombudsman to provide the outcome that the complainant wants. Essex County Council (19 009 128) Summary: Miss A complains about the actions of the Rotherham Doncaster and South Humber NHS Foundation Trust and Essex County Council in relation to her mental health. We have decided that the joint issues of s.117 of the Mental Health Act are outside our time limit and we will not investigate them. Milton Keynes Council (19 013 080) Summary: Miss P and Mrs Q complain the Council has not completed a financial assessment properly. The Council is not at fault. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (19 015 466) Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council had assessed his son's, Mr Y's care contributions and disability related expenditure. He said the Council had failed to backdate payments, sent him threatening invoices and had failed to respond to his complaints. We find the Council was at fault for delays in backdating Mr Y's disability related expenditure and in its correspondence with Mr X about this matter. It also failed to respond to his complaints. That has put Mr X to avoidable time and trouble and caused him frustration and distress. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr X to remedy the injustice caused. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (19 006 915) Summary: Ms C complained about the way in which the Council decided, on several occasions, that her mother should be discharged to her home, rather than into residential care. The Ombudsman found fault with the way the Council considered Mrs M's capacity and the way in which the Council communicated with hospital staff. The Council has agreed to provide an apology and financial remedy to Ms C and her mother. It will also share the lessons learned with its staff and discuss with the hospital how it can communicate more effectively with hospital around discharges. Chandos Lodge Limited (20 004 331) Summary: The actions of the care provide caused some injustice to Mr X but the care provider has since remedied that by its payment. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint now as there is no further worthwhile outcome which can be achieved. Brancaster Care Homes Limited (19 018 356) Summary: Mrs D complained about the way in which the Care Provider dealt with issues relating to the care of her mother in one of its care homes and the associated fees. The Care Provider has agreed to refund £1942, make a written apology and improve its procedures for the future. London Borough of Hounslow (20 002 456) Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not intervene when he reported safeguarding concerns to it, relating to his mother, in 2015. We will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely we could now carry out a meaningful investigation or provide a meaningful outcome for Mr X. Cheshire West & Chester Council (20 003 115) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B's complaint about care provided to her late mother, Mrs D. This is because it is unlikely the Ombudsman could add to the response already provided to Ms B or make a different finding of the kind Ms B wants. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (20 001 620) Summary: We have stopped investigating Ms X's complaint about her late mother's care in a care home. Since she complained to us, the Council has started a safeguarding investigation into the same issue and so it is appropriate for safeguarding to finish before we investigate. Kent County Council (19 006 286) Summary: The Ombudsman has found fault. There was a lack of detail in Dr B's care plans and the plans were not sufficiently updated to reflect his changing needs. The Council did not provide a personal budget. The Council's information on charging was inadequate and did not explain how the invoices had been calculated. The Council also charged Dr B for care he did not receive and it did not properly monitor whether the agency was providing the care it was meant to provide. The Council did not provide a proper response to the complaint and there were very long delays in its response. The Council has agreed to improve its services, apologise and pay the family £500. London Borough of Wandsworth (18 006 669) Summary: Mrs V complains about the care of her late husband by a care home and a GP Practice in the last months of his life. We have upheld some of Mrs V's complaints about the Home's care of Mr V and its complaint handling. We have also upheld some of Mrs V's complaints about the GP Practice's handling of end of life medication and complaint handling. Bupa, the Council and the GP Practice accept our recommendations. We have therefore completed our investigation. Telford & Wrekin Council (18 018 951) Summary: Mrs Z complains about her late father's care and assessments in hospital, discharge from hospital and communication by the organisations involved. We have found fault relating to documentation, communication and complaint handling. We have not upheld the rest of the complaint. The Council has offered a financial remedy for Mrs Z which we consider is fair. We have recommended apologies for Mrs Z and service improvements. The organisations concerned accept our recommendations. We have therefore completed our investigation. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (17 012 634) Summary: Miss X complained about the actions of London Borough of Tower Hamlets (the Council's) adult social care and substance misuse services and East London NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust's) mental health and autism diagnosis services. The Ombudsmen have upheld some of Miss X's complaints against both the Council and the Trust. The Council and the Trust have accepted our recommendations for apologies, financial remedies and service improvements. We have therefore completed our investigation. East Sussex County Council (19 014 173) Summary: The Ombudsmen find a CCG did not do enough to pursue alternative ways of arranging Continuing Healthcare outside of directly commissioning it. As a result Ms A had to provide a significant amount of care for her mother which, in turn, caused avoidable stress and discomfort. The Ombudsmen also find a Council did not handle the removal of a source of support to Ms A as sensitively as it should. The Ombudsmen has recommended apologies and a financial payment to address these injustices. 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