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. Oxfordshire County Council (20 007 890) Summary: We do not propose to investigate this complaint about the actions of the Care Provider in relation to the complainant and his family. This is because we cannot add to the previous complaint investigation or achieve the outcomes that the complainant seeks. Lancashire County Council (20 008 006) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint that his father, between 2010 and 2012, paid care home fees and was refused continuing health care funding. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (19 009 026) Summary: Mr B complains that his father broke his hip while he stayed at a care home. We have not found fault with the way the Council carried out a safeguarding enquiry into the incident, not its investigation into alleged discrepancies in the documents. However, there was some fault in the care home's communications with the family, record keeping and consideration of the care plan. The Council's safeguarding enquiry already addressed these concerns with recommended service improvements. We do not recommend any other service improvements but the Council should apologise to the family for the fault. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (19 014 814) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's failure to provide an appropriate care home for her mother and deal with her complaint about this. This caused significant distress and uncertainty about the impact this had on her mother's heath. We find the Council to be at fault. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X and review its practices. Northamptonshire County Council (19 020 393) Summary: Miss B complained the Council double charged her for contributions to her domiciliary care package and respite care and delayed recognising that, sent her invoices after it had agreed not to and failed to offer her a suitable remedy. The Council delayed recognising Miss B was having to pay two contributions and wrongly issued a further invoice in 2020. The financial remedy offered to Miss B, plus a review of the Council's policy, is satisfactory remedy for the financial loss to Miss B. The Council should also apologise and pay Miss B's representative an amount to reflect the time and trouble she had to go to pursuing the complaint over a long period of time. The Council should also consider whether others have been similarly affected. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (20 005 266) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's decisions on her financial contribution towards her social care. This is because the Council has offered a further financial review which it is reasonable to expect Ms X to use first before the Ombudsman will consider her complaint. London Borough of Lewisham (19 011 275) Summary: Ms B said the Council refused to accept her complaint about alleg1ations a care provider made about her despite her making it properly and in good time. She also said the Council failed to involve her in her brother's care and support arrangements. We found the Council failed to accept and investigate Ms B's complaint in line with its statutory duties. There was no fault in the way the Council involves Ms B in her brother's care and support arrangements. The Council has agreed to our recommendations and will apologise to Ms B, make an acknowledgement payment, and remind its officers of the importance of effective complaint handling. Hampshire County Council (19 019 904) Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to properly monitor two homecare agencies it commissioned to provide care to her mother, Mrs C. She also said the Trust's mental health assessment was poor as it failed to record visible bruising to Mrs C's face. The Council's safeguarding investigation could not determine the cause of bruising found on Mrs C's body after she was admitted to hospital in 2019. The Trust said its officer did not notice any bruising when the assessment was completed. The Council accepted there had been systemic failings, but it could not substantiate the allegation of neglect. We cannot say the Trust was at fault in the way it completed the mental health assessment. There was fault by the homecare agencies commissioned by the Council, but we did not find fault in the way the Council monitored the agencies or in the way it completed a safeguarding investigation. The Council agreed to our recommendation and will arrange for a written apology to be sent to Mrs B for the injustice caused by the systemic failings identified. East Sussex County Council (19 015 462) Summary: The Council was not at fault for the way it sent invoices to Mr Y for care charges or for how it responded to his concerns. However, the Council was at fault for not explaining why it was charging Mr Y weekly for a service when he attended fortnightly. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused. Norfolk County Council (19 016 681) Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her father, Mr Y, that the Council did not adequately care for Mr Y and showed neglect. The Ombudsman found the Council was not at fault in the way it cared for and supported Mr Y. The Council was at fault for not telling Mrs X the outcome of financial abuse allegations made about her. Hartlepool Borough Council (19 018 353) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not explain there would be a cost for the first six weeks of Mr D's residential care, whilst his needs were assessed. The Council was at fault for providing inconsistent information about the nature of the placement and for not providing any information about the costs until after the six week assessment period had ended. To remedy this it should apologise and waive some of the costs. Norfolk County Council (19 020 060) Summary: Mrs D complained about how the Council assessed and provided care for her late mother Mrs M. We find the Council was not at fault. The residential care provider has been unable to provide the communication log for the period of Mrs M's respite stay. That is fault but has not caused an injustice. Oxfordshire County Council (19 021 208) Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council's decision to place a noisy resident in supported living accommodation near their home and the Council's delay in resolving the noise nuisance. There was no fault in the Council's actions. London Borough of Waltham Forest (19 007 005) Summary: Ms X complained her son received poor care at a supported living placement. The Council was at fault in how it reviewed Mr Y's care and support plan and ensured he could safely use his bathroom. This meant Mr Y and Ms X experienced uncertainty about whether Mr Y's needs were being met and put Mr Y at risk of harm. To remedy the injustice they experienced, the Council will make a payment to Mr Y and Ms X and remind staff about the requirements for reviewing care and support plans. 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