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. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (19 012 063) Summary: There was fault in the way the Council decided to send Mr B an invoice for a contribution towards care costs from 2016 to 2018. Mr B had paid the contribution from the wrong account, but there was fault in the Council's communications about this error and its failure to take any action earlier. The Ombudsman recommends the Council apologises to Mr B, writes off part of the debt and offers him a meeting and a repayment plan for the remainder of the debt. Hampshire County Council (19 017 737) Summary: We have not found fault in the Council's decision to start a safeguarding enquiry after it received a safeguarding referral. Bracknell Forest Council (19 018 220) Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to properly assess his application for a Blue Badge. He says the Council's handling of his application caused him distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault for the way it explained its decision to Mr X and for failing to have an appeals process. To remedy the injustice this caused Mr X, the Council has agreed to apologise and make Mr X a payment for the distress and uncertainty. It has also introduced service improvements, including a Blue Badge review process. Bluebird Care AKA BenJeMax Limited (19 016 311) Summary: Mr B complains there were a series of poor communications by the Care Provider when he commissioned it to provide care for his disabled wife. We uphold the complaint. We find the Care Provider did not give clear information about its costs to Mr B before beginning care and did not serve proper notice when it decided to end care. This caused injustice in the form of distress, frustration and time and trouble. The Care Provider accepts these findings. At the end of this statement we explain the action it has agreed to remedy that injustice. Norfolk County Council (19 018 011) Summary: The care and support plan was inaccurate by the time Mrs B was discharged from hospital to the care home. That did not cause any injustice to Mrs B as the care home had ample information from the hospital, although it was distressing for Mrs X to read. The Council did not provide comprehensive information to Mrs B or her family about the likely charges for her care. Rex Develop Ltd (19 020 259) Summary: The Ombudsman finds fault with Rex Develop Ltd for delays responding to Mrs B calls for assistance. It also failed to accurately record the time of the calls and how long it took to respond. This caused Mrs B distress. Rex Develop Ltd agrees actions to remedy the injustice. Bupa Care Homes (PT Lindsay) Limited (20 002 436) Summary: Ms X complained the care provider shared information about her complaint and other matters with her relatives which has negatively affected their relationship. We have discontinued the investigation as it is unlikely we could add anything to the care provider's response and so there is no worthwhile outcome we can achieve by further investigating the complaint. Nottingham City Council (20 002 711) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the actions of the Council. This is because further investigation would not provide a different outcome to that Mr B has received from the Council or give him the outcome he wants. London Borough of Newham (20 002 774) Summary: Mrs Y complains about the Council's failure to properly consider the impact of her hidden disabilities when assessing eligibility for a blue badge. We find fault in the Council's assessment because it did not comply with the Department for Transport's guidance. Since making her complaint, Mrs Y has received a blue badge so there is no requirement for the Council to arrange a re-assessment. However, the Council will apologise to Mrs Y for the time and trouble caused and arrange training for officers who make blue badge decisions. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (20 004 371) Summary: Ms X's representative complained about the Council's failure to provide information about a historical care debt. We will not investigate the complaint because the Council has now resolved it by sending the information requested. Potensial Limited (20 006 491) Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about how a care provider dealt with her complaints about noise. We cannot provide more detail because the information is about a third party, whose personal data must be protected. Nottinghamshire County Council (20 008 040) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's late complaint about the Council refusing to enter into a third party top-up agreement relating to his brother-in-law's care. There is not a good reason Mr X did not bring his complaint to the Ombudsman sooner. Avvsim Care Limited (20 008 109) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the actions of his mother's, Mrs C's care provider following a fall. This is because further investigation by the Ombudsman could not provide Mr B with a different outcome to that already provided by the care provider or one that Mr B wants. Care UK Community Partnerships Limited (19 012 088) Summary: Ms C complained about various aspects of the residential respite care her (late) mother received. We found there was some fault in the actions of the care provider. It has agreed to apologise for any distress these may have caused Ms M and her family. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (19 019 437) Summary: The Council is at fault at it did not provide sufficient information for Mrs Z and her family to know she had to pay a contribution towards her care home fees. The Council also delayed in sending an invoice to Mrs Z's family for the client contribution. The faults caused distress to Mrs Z's family and Mr Y was put to avoidable time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. The Council will remedy this injustice by apologising to Mrs Z's family and making a payment of £250 to the family and a payment of £100 to Mr Y. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (19 020 411) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has failed to deal properly with the charges for Mrs Y's care, by treating her as a full cost payer through no fault of her own and causing her significant distress. The Council has now agreed to backdate its contribution towards the cost of Mrs Y's care. It also needs to apologise and pay financial redress. Hadley Care Limited (20 001 937) Summary: Miss X complains that the Care Home failed to contact her when her father was admitted to hospital and therefore, she could not make arrangements to see him before he passed away. We find the Care Home failed to contact Miss X and we make recommendations to remedy the injustice this caused. Royal Borough of Greenwich (20 007 272) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint that the Council has refused to recognise corporate manslaughter. This is because the Coroner is the appropriate person to make enquiries. Crossroads Care East Midlands - Nottingham Office (20 007 454) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the charges made by the Care Provider. This is because there is not enough remaining injustice to justify our involvement. East Sussex County Council (19 005 830) Summary: Ms X complains about the Council's decision to stop funding her son, Mr Y's fifth day of day care since May 2006. Ms X says Mr Y has incorrectly accrued debt in unpaid care contributions because of the Council's actions. We are satisfied there was no fault in the Council's actions from 2017. The issues that Ms X has complained from this date about have not caused her or Mr Y injustice for which we would recommend a remedy. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (19 011 032) Summary: The Council has already upheld Mr C's complaint that there was delay in its provision of a care plan and in its response to the complaint. We agree there was fault. The Council has agreed to amend the care plan and has offered a re-assessment. The Council has also offered a payment of £250 and cancellation of the debt Mr C owes. These are appropriate remedies for the fault. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (19 015 678) Summary: Mr and Mrs B complained the Council failed to properly consider safeguarding concerns they raised, engage with them or tell them the outcome of its investigation and then made false allegations about them, failed to explain the advocate's role, harassed them, relied on uncorroborated evidence and delayed responding to their complaints. There is no fault in how the Council handled the safeguarding investigation, no evidence it relied on wrong information and there is no evidence of harassment. The Council failed to properly explain the advocate's role and delayed responding to complaints. An apology and memo to officers making referrals for advocates is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused. Goring Care Homes Limited (19 020 835) Summary: Mr X complained the Care Provider increased his mother's care fees more than the 5% it said it would. The Care Provider issued an unclear contract and provided misleading information in its fee increase notification letter. The Care Provider has agreed to review its contracts for all self-funding residents and to apologise to Mr X. Lancashire County Council (20 001 673) Summary: Ms X complained about the quality of reablement care provided to Mrs Y on behalf of the Council. The Council was at fault for failing to ensure CRG Homecare kept proper records and provided a female carer for Mrs Y. This caused Ms X unnecessary distress and frustration. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment and ensure CRG Homecare reminds staff to record their visits properly. North East Lincolnshire Council (20 003 995) Summary: Miss X complains about the Council's financial assessment for her adult son. She says the Council only disregarded housing costs of just over £15 a week when Mr P's contribution to the rent is around £53 a week. We do not find fault with the Council's charging policy or financial assessment. Golden Services Care Limited (20 004 339) Summary: No injustice was caused to Mr X by the actions of the care provider: its contract clearly states a cancellation fee would be payable. Kent County Council (20 004 872) Summary: The Ombudsmen will not investigate a complaint about a Council and an NHS Trust's decision not to complete a Mental Health Act assessment sooner. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice. Suffolk County Council (20 006 402) Summary: The Ombudsman will investigate Mrs Q's complaint about the Council's handling of a safeguarding enquiry regarding her mother. This is because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council and we cannot investigate the Police. Worcestershire County Council (20 007 222) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council made a slanderous comment to the Department for Work and Pensions about the complainant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and an on-going police investigation. In addition, we cannot investigate the Department for Work and Pensions. Surrey County Council (19 005 431) Summary: We found fault by the Council with regards to the care and support it provided to Miss X, a woman with complex needs, in the community. We also found fault by the Council and Trust concerning the handling of Miss X's discharge from hospital. This fault caused Miss X significant distress and frustration. The Council and Trust have agreed to apologise to Miss X and the Council will make a payment in recognition of the distress she suffered. Essex County Council (19 009 922) Summary: Mr Z and Mrs Y complain about the way the Council dealt with assessment and charging for their late father's residential care. We have upheld parts of the complaint. The Council accepts our recommendations for service improvements and a symbolic payment to the complainants. We have therefore completed our investigation. Birmingham City Council (19 017 599) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council delayed assigning a social worker to her client Ms Y from April to August 2019 and refused to reimburse some care costs for Ms Y that Mrs X's company incurred between June and August 2019 because of that delay. Mrs X says this means Mrs X's company has not received money it should have. We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint at this time. This is because the matter has not been through the Council's contractual dispute resolution procedure. Nottinghamshire County Council (19 021 240) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision to reduce his support package following a review of his care needs. We have not found the Council to be at fault. Isle of Wight Council (20 001 581) Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's decision not to disregard a sum of £30,000 in his father's bank account when assessing his charges for care. The Ombudsman finds no fault by the Council. West Sussex County Council (20 004 728) Summary: The Ombudsman has not identified any fault by the Council for requiring a needs assessment for Mrs H's mother. Further, Mrs H has complained about failings in her contact with the Council, including during the complaints process. The Council has apologised to Mrs H for these failings and so there was fault. However, the Ombudsman does not consider Mrs H has suffered a significant and personal injustice by reason of the fault. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (19 000 261) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council commissioned care provider, Burlington Homecare, failed to provide appropriate care and support to her late mother, Mrs M. In addition, the Council failed to provide Mrs X with appropriate advice and support. There were faults by the care provider including failing to ensure it met Mrs M's care needs and failing to take action when she was not in when it visited. The Council also failed to provide advice and support to Mrs X. These faults caused Mrs X distress and worry. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs X, provide evidence it has taken action to address the faults it identified through its complaint investigation and ensure the care provider reviews its procedures to consider whether action should be taken when service users do not answer or are not in when it visits Cornwall Council (19 016 592) Summary: The Council has already upheld Mr B's complaint that it should not have started a safeguarding enquiry into concerns raised about Mr B and should not have continued with the enquiry. We agree this was fault and the Council has agreed to pay Mr B £200 to reflect the injustice he suffered. Nottinghamshire County Council (19 017 394) Summary: Mr D complains about the Council reducing his support hours after a review of his care needs. And it not carrying out a remedy in line with an earlier Ombudsman decision. We find the decision on the support hours was made without fault, so we cannot question its merits. But we do uphold the complaint, because the Council did not backdate an increase in disability related expenditure to a date it had agreed with the Ombudsman. We also find fault with the way the Council handled Mr D's complaint. And fault in the way it has dealt with Mr D's direct payment. The Council has agreed to our recommendations. Camelot Care (Plymouth) Limited (19 019 695) Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of the late Mr Y that the Care Provider did not restart Mr Y's prescription after he moved from another nursing home. Mr X says Mr Y did not receive all his prescribed medications during his stay with the Care Provider. Mr X says this has caused him uncertainty about the care provided to Mr Y. We find no fault in how the care home administered Mr Y's medication, but some fault caused by delays in replying to Mr X. The Care Provider has already apologised for this fault. It has agreed to remind its staff to adhere to its complaints policy. Nottinghamshire County Council (20 000 657) Summary: Mr X complains that the Council failed to complete adaptations to his mother's property before sending her home with a care package. We have found no fault by the Council. Milton Keynes Council (20 000 870) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to appropriately assess his need for care and support. There was no fault in the way the Council assessed Mr X's care needs. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (20 006 410) Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council billed her late father for care he received at home. We should not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to add to the Council's investigation or recommend any different outcome. Dorset Council (20 007 204) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the information provided by the Council about deferred payment for care. This is because we are unlikely to find fault causing injustice by the Council. Suffolk County Council (20 007 457) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint that the Council has refused to answer her complaint about her daughter's placement. This is because we could not achieve the outcome Mrs B is seeking by investigating her complaint. Lancashire County Council (19 019 811) Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council assessed his care needs. The Council was at fault for not sending Mr X a record of the telephone assessment, delays in its complaints process and a failure to have due regard to its Equality Act obligations. It will apologise, pay Mr X £100 to remedy the distress caused, and remind staff about the duty to consider making reasonable adjustments. Cornwalll Council (19 004 581) Summary: Mrs D complains the Council should not have stopped her Direct Payments in August 2018. Mrs D says the Council should also have allowed her daughter, who lived with her, to remain her paid carer. Mrs D complains the Council failed to put a commissioned homecare service in place to provide her care when it stopped her Direct Payments, and because of this her daughter was forced to continue to provide this care to her as an informal unpaid carer. Mrs D says the Council also failed to support her daughter in her role as her informal carer. Mrs D says this resulted in significant distress to her and her daughter, as well as financial hardship for her daughter. Her daughter could not take up any paid employment opportunities for herself, did not have enough breaks and was therefore unable to maintain her social life, engage with hobbies and interests and have regular time off to relax. Mrs D also complains about the financial assessment the Council carried out in November 2017, which resulted in a decision that she had to pay a contribution towards the cost of her care between November 2017 and December 2018. Lancashire County Council (20 003 625) Summary: We will not investigate Mr L's complaint about arrangements for his mother's discharge from hospital in November 2018. The complaint is late and we have not seen sufficient reasons to investigate it 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