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. North Yorkshire County Council (19 004 552) Summary: The complaint is about a safeguarding investigation into allegations of abuse at a council-run care home. There is some fault by the Council which caused avoidable distress. The Council will apologise, carry out reviews of Mr B and Ms C and make a payment to recognise the distress. London Borough of Croydon (19 014 715) Summary: Mr X complained a residential care home restricted access to his friend. Mr X also complained the Council failed to carry out actions promised in January 2020. Mr X says this is causing him to be pushed out of his friend's life. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council. Sheffield City Council (19 019 365) Summary: Mr B says Company A, acting for the Council, failed to apply for Attendance Allowance for Mr C. Company A is not completing an administrative function on behalf of the Council, so the Council is not responsible for the actions of Company A. There was no fault by the Council in referring Mr C to a professional company to help him manage his finances. The Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction to investigate the actions of Company A. London Borough of Hillingdon (19 020 164) Summary: Mr X complained the Council refused to include the cost of his oxygen therapy, iPhone and assistance dog as disability related expenditure. The Council was not at fault. It considered Mr X's care plan, statutory guidance and its own policy in deciding not to include these costs as disability related expenditure. Hertfordshire County Council (19 011 176) Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to properly consider and communicate with Mrs C the decision not to fund a care home. I cannot say now whether, but for the faults identified the outcome would have been different. However the Council's actions have caused Mrs C uncertainty and frustration. The Council has agreed to remind/train staff to improve future practice and to make Mrs C a payment of £200 to acknowledge the uncertainty and anxiety its actions have caused. Durham County Council (19 016 252) Summary: The Council was not at fault for deciding Mr C had capacity to manage his own finances in early 2019. However, it was at fault for failing to properly record the date of his capacity assessment, for a delay in relinquishing control of his bank account after deciding he had capacity, and for failing to arrange further support in November 2019. It has agreed to apologise, to set out a plan for supporting Mr C, and to make payments totalling £550 to recognise the injustice of Mr C and his mother, who made the complaint on his behalf. Leicester City Council (19 017 240) Summary: The Council first delayed and then failed to properly consider Mr B's enquiries about a Disabled Facilities Grant to alter his wet room floor so he could shower safely. It has now assessed his situation and has taken action to reduce the risk to him while it further investigates how to alter the floor. It will retrain staff and formally apologise to Mr and Mrs B. The Council has agreed to also make a payment to him in recognition of the distress and inconvenience its shortcomings caused. Gloucestershire County Council (19 018 263) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council charged too much for her care and did not properly take account of her need to use taxis. We found there was no fault by the Council. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (19 018 992) Summary: Mr B complains that he was not told about a top-up fee when his mother moved into Royley House Care Home. The Council had already upheld most of Mr B's complaint and remedied some of the fault. The Council has now agreed to repay all the top-up fees the family has paid and this is an appropriate remedy for the fault. Norfolk County Council (19 020 299) Summary: The Council acted without administrative fault in deciding to treat Mrs Y as having deprived herself of assets. There is evidence of fault in the way Council completed a Mental Capacity Assessment of Mrs Y London Borough Of Barnet (20 001 049) Summary: Mrs B complained about the standard of care provided to her late aunt at a care home. We have agreed the Council will now investigate the complaint. If Mrs B is dissatisfied with the outcome of the Council's investigation then she can make a further complaint to us. We have discontinued the investigation. London Borough of Hackney (20 004 000) Summary: The Council acted in line with section 42 of the Care Act 2014 when responding to Ms X's complaints about a personal assistant so there is no fault. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (20 005 187) Summary: The Ombudsmen will not investigate Ms X's complaints. Most of her complaints about Cheshire & Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust and Wirral Clinical Commissioning Group are out of time. The Ombudsmen are also unlikely to find fault with her other complaints about Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council and her son's residential placement. Birmingham City Council (20 005 502) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about her cousin's care and access to information. This is because Mrs X's complaint is late, and the Information Commissioner's Office is best placed to consider complaints about access to information. Epsom & Ewell Borough Council (19 012 523) Summary: Miss X, who complains on behalf of her brother and his partner, Mr Y and Ms Z, says the Council was at fault in its handling of works to their bathroom undertaken as part of a Disabled Facility Grant. We found evidence of delay by the Council which has caused an injustice to Mr Y and Ms Z. For this reason, we recommended the Council apologises to them, pays them £350 in recognition of the impact of the delays on them and seeks to resolve outstanding works at their home within the next three months. The Council agreed. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (19 013 022) Summary: Mrs B complained about the care her late father, Mr C, received at Robert Harvey House Nursing home where he lived for the last five weeks of his life. She considered the care fell short of reasonable standards. In particular she complained there was a failure to administer medication and other failings with hydration, toileting, pressure relief, nutrition and hygiene. There was fault by the Council and in the care it commissioned. It will apologise to Mrs B and make a payment to her. Darlington Borough Council (19 017 746) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council carried out an incorrect financial assessment of her mother, Mrs Y's assets when she applied for assistance with her residential care costs. She said this caused Mrs Y considerable distress and inconvenience. The Council was at fault when it initially failed to provide a written record of its financial assessment and delayed responding to Mrs X's complaint however, neither Mrs X nor Mrs Y experienced a significant injustice because of this. London Borough of Lambeth (19 019 618) Summary: The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for the way it handled Miss B's request for assistance with adaptions to her property. The significant delays by the Council caused Miss B frustration and put her to additional time and trouble. The Council agrees actions to remedy the injustice to Miss B. Warwickshire County Council (20 000 423) Summary: The Ombudsman does not find fault with the way the Council decided Mrs B's Blue Badge application. London Borough of Harrow (20 005 996) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an application for a Blue Badge and a Taxicard. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the complainant could submit a new application. Kent County Council (20 006 054) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the Council charging his daughter, Ms C for backdated care. This is because it is unlikely he would find enough evidence of fault with the Council's actions to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. London Borough of Ealing (19 007 335) Summary: The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to assess Mr C's needs and produce a care and support plan. We also find fault with the Council for failing to carry out a carer's assessment for Mr C's parents. This caused an injustice to Mr C and his parents. The Council agrees actions to remedy the injustice. City of York Council (19 009 453) Summary: Ms C complains her mother was taken into hospital with hypothermia, and about the time it took to move her mother back to her own home again, after she had been discharged from hospital. We found the Council should have ensured that, when it became aware of a heating problem at the property, that appropriate steps were taken to resolve this immediately. The Council has agreed to apologise for this. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (19 016 351) Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed Ms Y's care needs. As there is no evidence of fault in the process, I cannot comment on the merits of the decision reached. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (19 017 651) Summary: Mr X complains the care home, in which the Council placed his mother, failed to look after her properly, resulting in her having two falls and permanently reducing her mobility. The evidence does not support the claim that the care home was responsible for Mrs Y's injuries. Essex County Council (19 020 100) Summary: Mr C complained the Council required him to pay twelve weeks of top up payments in advance, so he could ensure his mother-in-law could live in the care home of her choice. He said this left a large dent in his personal finances. We found the Council was at fault for requiring the payment of a 12 weeks 'security deposit. During the course of the investigation, the Council took steps to review its policy and remedy the fault by repaying 8 weeks of the advance payment to Mr C and others similarly affected. West Sussex County Council (19 021 003) Summary: Ms X complains about the Council's refusal to disregard the value of her late mother's home when assessing care charges, resulting in Ms X losing her home and causing distress. We find no fault in the Council's decision making but find delay in the process causing injustice. We recommend the Council provides an apology, payment and acts to prevent recurrence. London Borough of Enfield (20 000 211) Summary: Mrs B and Mr D complain about the Council's failure to provide support to Mr C or to properly respond to safeguarding referrals relating to Mr C. A decision has been made that this case meets the threshold for a Safeguarding Adults Review. The Ombudsman has discontinued its investigation because a Safeguarding Adults Review is a more appropriate investigation into this complaint. London Borough of Newham (20 006 245) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B's complaint about care provided to the late Mr C. This is because he could not provide a remedy to Mr C for any injustice caused to him by the Council's failings, as he is now deceased. Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (18 014 139) Summary: The Care Provider did not explain the extra charge it made for a 'lifestyle premium' and we cannot be sure that the complainant, the late Mrs J, would have chosen to pay this. It has agreed to refund half the total amount to Mrs J's estate and review the advice it gives about this. The Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) Occupational Therapy service failed to complete an assessment and so it could not fund a specialist chair for Mrs J and she had to be nursed in bed. The CCG should refund the cost of the chair to the daughter and pay her £300 in recognition of her distress. It should also review how its OT provision is organised. Cambridgeshire County Council (19 014 212) Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her father, Mr Y, about the Council's safeguarding enquiry into the care Mr Y received at Cromwell House Nursing Home. The Ombudsman found no fault in the outcome of the enquiry. London Borough of Ealing (19 019 547) Summary: The Ombudsmen do not consider Miss C was eligible for section 117 aftercare after 2005. However, London Borough of Ealing significantly delayed reviewing Miss C's social care needs after 2017. That fault most likely delayed Miss C's move to supported accommodation. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (19 018 843) Summary: Mrs A believes her mother's care in a care home should be fully funded under section 117 of the Mental Health Act. We found fault with the Council and the Clinical Commissioning Group due to a lack of assessment and planning of Mrs B's s.117 aftercare. The CCG and Council have agreed to carry out work to remedy the matter. Darlington Borough Council (19 015 504) Summary: Mrs X complained about the advice the Council gave her about disability related expenses and its decision not to make allowance for all the expenses she claimed when calculating the contribution she had to pay towards her care costs. The Council was not at fault. London Borough of Croydon (19 014 751) Summary: Miss B complains about how the Council dealt with her application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. The Council did take her family's views into account and progressed the application properly. It was late in making some payments to the builders. However, it has now made all the payments due and has apologised to Miss B for the late payments. London Borough of Islington (19 011 672) Summary: The Council failed to complete an adult social care assessment in 2017, it has already apologised for this error and offered an assessment which is appropriate action in response. Miss B does not want to take part in an assessment as she has lost trust in the Council. It is not currently the Council's fault that an assessment cannot take place. On the Ombudsman's recommendation the Council has recently offered Miss B an assessment, considering any reasonable adjustments it should make to enable Miss B to take part. Miss B has rejected it. North Yorkshire County Council (20 000 885) Summary: The Ombudsmen will not investigate a complaint about a Council's decision to consider charging an elderly gentleman for his care. This followed a period where he mistakenly received free care because the Council wrongly thought he was entitled to free aftercare under the Mental Health Act 1983. The Council and the Health Trust have already accepted faults and acted to remedy the mistakes, which includes waiving the care fees that should have been charged for previous years. An investigation by the Ombudsmen is unlikely to achieve a different outcome. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (19 012 197) Summary: The Ombudsmen found no fault with the care and support provided to a young woman with complex needs by a Council, Mental Health Trust and Clinical Commissioning Group. Kent County Council (20 000 076) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint. This is because the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman is better placed to consider his complaint. 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