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. Cornwall Council (19 019 385) Summary: Mr X complained the Council had failed to assess his finances properly, resulting in a delay in funding his care. Nottinghamshire County Council (19 015 363) Summary: Ms B complained the Council delayed assessing her father's (Mr D) care needs, delayed assessing his mental capacity to decide where to live, and delayed making a decision in his best interests. We have upheld these complaints. This meant Mr D stayed at a care home longer than necessary and has a debt of over £15,000, for care fees which he cannot afford to pay because the Council failed to act in his best interests. The Council's actions also had an impact on Ms B's mother (Mrs D) at a time she was suffering carer crisis. The Care Provider has pursued her for the fees, including threatening bailiff action, which has been distressing. London Borough of Haringey (19 016 504) Summary: The Council is at fault as it carried out an inadequate Care Act assessment for Ms Y so it did not have a complete picture of her needs. The Council also delayed in arranging the installation of an intercom system following the assessment. The Council has agreed to remedy Ms Y's injustice by carrying out a new Care Act assessment for Ms Y and by making a payment of £250 to her to acknowledge the distress caused. Midshires Care Limited (19 020 899) Summary: Ms B complains on behalf of her parents, Mr and Mrs C, that the service provided by Midshires Care Limited was inadequate and that it wrongly charged them for care provision during the 14 day notice period. She also says it delayed in responding to her complaint. We uphold Ms B's complaint. Mr and Mrs C and their family suffered distress and inconvenience because of the actions of Midshires Care Limited. It has agreed to remedy the injustice caused by making a payment and issuing a revised invoice. Parklands Care Services Limited (20 001 461) Summary: Mr X complained the care provider, Parklands Care Services Ltd, unfairly and inappropriately increased his father, Mr F's care fees. The care provider was at fault. The terms in its contracts relating to fee increases are not in line with Competition and Markets Authority guidance which means it is likely they are unfair under consumer law. This causes Mr X and all other residents and their representatives across the care provider's care homes uncertainty about future care fee increases. The care provider agreed to review its contract to ensure it complies with the guidance and consumer law. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (20 002 541) Summary: The Council failed to provide adequate domiciliary care to a vulnerable adult. Its safeguarding investigation found poor practice by the Care Provider it commissioned to meet Mr D's adult social care needs. Mr D received rushed care which did not always meet his needs and contributed to his skin breakdown leaving him uncomfortable. The Council missed opportunities to resolve the issues at the earliest stage and misplaced a complaint. This protracted the upset and frustration for Mr D's wife and daughter. The Council will refund the care fees, pay £200 each to Mr D's wife and daughter, and remind staff of the importance of accurate record keeping and responding to correspondence. Devon County Council (20 005 719) Summary: The Council was not at fault for its refusal of Mrs B's blue badge application. It followed correct procedure and considered all the information she provided, so we cannot question its decision. Although occupational therapists may not have been the most suitable assessors for Mrs B's health conditions, they were not so obviously unsuitable as to raise questions about the soundness of the decision. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (20 007 171) Summary: We will not investigate Miss Q's complaint about the Council's Adult Social Care team's failure to offer support or a Care Act 2014 assessment following an accident. Nor will we investigate Miss Q's complaint that the Council was limiting her contact. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (19 012 289) Summary: Mrs C complained about the way in which the Council carried out a safeguarding investigation against her. We found that, while the Council was not at fault for the time it took to complete the investigation, it failed to sufficiently consider whether it would be possible to interview Mrs C before it made its decision. This resulted in distress to her. The Council has agreed to apologise for this and review whether it will be able to interview Mrs C. London Borough of Hillingdon (19 020 978) Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly placed him for a short stay in a care home in August 2018, and wrongly invoiced him for the associated care costs. The Council was not at fault for placing him in a care home or charging him for it. However, it has no record that it gave him costs advice in August 2018, for which it should apologise. East Sussex County Council (20 000 512) Summary: Mr X and Ms Y complained the Council delayed transferring their late mother, Mrs Z, from a temporary care home to her preferred care home, pending the outcome of a Continuing Healthcare (CHC) assessment. The Council was at fault. It did await the CHC outcome, but this did not cause Mrs Z an injustice as Mrs Z was unwell and so the delay did not affect the timing of the move. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and Ms Y for the lack of clarity in its communications and remind staff that CHC assessments should not delay planned care home moves. Alliance Care (Dales Homes) Limited (20 006 010) Summary: Mr P has complained on behalf of Mr R about the care he received by the Care Provider. The Ombudsman has identified various failings by the Care Provider about the level and adequacy of care provided to Mr R. This resulted in an injustice to Mr P and his family and so the Ombudsman has recommended a remedy. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (19 000 826) Summary: Ms X complains the Council has failed to meet her care needs. The Council failed to explain that her assessed charge needed updating, which caused unnecessary distress and contributed to her reluctance to accept the support on offer. The Council has agreed to apologise, waive any assessed charge for 12 months and take action to assess Ms X's needs under the Care Act, which it last did in 2017. Birmingham City Council (19 008 352) Summary: Ms X complained the care home delayed taking her sister, Ms Z, to the hospital, where she died the following day. Ms X also has concerns over the information contained within the response to her complaint. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council's handling of Ms X's complaint but not with the care provided by the care home. The Council agreed to the Ombudsman's recommendations to apologise to Ms X for the delays experienced and provide feedback to the care home about record keeping. London Borough Of Barnet (19 011 268) Summary: Mr K complains about a delay in reviewing his support needs. And that the Council refused to agree to provide the support he needs to care for his son. We cannot decide whether Mr K needs all the support he requests. But we do uphold the complaint, because the Council did not provide any extra support when it could not agree a revised support plan with Mr K. The Council has agreed to our recommendations. London Borough of Islington (19 017 621) Summary: Mr D complained the Council failed to properly consider his application for a blue badge under the Department of Transport's hidden disabilities eligibility criteria guidance. He said the Council did not consider his medical conditions in line with the guidance and as a result he is left without a blue badge. He also complained that the Council did not offer him the right to have its decision on his application reviewed in line with the guidance. We found fault in the way the Council reviewed Mr D's application for a blue badge. The Council has since issued Mr D with a blue badge and improved so we did not make recommendations. Hertfordshire County Council (19 019 240) Summary: Mr P complained that the Council and Trust stopped his direct payment without telling him, and did not give him the information he needed about how direct payments worked. The Trust, on behalf of the Council, apologised and paid Mr P a financial remedy. They also made improvements to how direct payments are managed following Mr P's complaint. Sheffield City Council (20 000 246) Summary: Ms B complained the Council failed to involve her as next of kin or take account of her father's wishes when placing him in a care home. Ms B complained the Council placed her father in an inappropriate placement, delayed meeting with her father to discuss his wishes, delayed completing a deprivation of liberty application, delayed completing a mental capacity assessment, failed to hold a best interests meeting, failed to carry out a safeguarding investigation and delayed completing an assessment when he was ready for discharge from hospital. The Council delayed meeting Ms B's father and in carrying out a mental capacity assessment and safeguarding investigation. There is no fault in the other parts of the complaint. The Council's delay is caused Ms B distress and created some uncertainty about whether the outcome would have been different. An apology and payment to Ms B, along with an action plan is satisfactory remedy. Promedica24 UK Limited (20 000 764) Summary: Ms B complains that ProMedica24 UK Limited failed to provide adequate care for her mother, Mrs C. We found one of the carers behaved inappropriately causing Mrs C and her family distress and inconvenience. To remedy the injustice caused, ProMedica24 UK Limited has agreed to apologise to the family and waive its fees from the date of the incident. Shaftesbury Care GRP Limited (20 004 599) Summary: Mr X complained his relative's jewellery went missing after she died at the care home. I have discontinued the investigation as there is no worthwhile outcome I could achieve by further investigation. Devon County Council (18 019 191) Summary: Mr F complained on behalf of his mother, Mrs X. Mr F complained about the Council's handling of Mrs X's placement at Edenmore Care home (the care home) which it arranged and commissioned. The Council was not fault for how it arranged Mrs X's placement. There was also no fault in how the care home authorised Mrs X's urgent Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard in April 2019. The care home failed to retain Mrs X's medication records from July 2018 until March 2019. This is fault. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr F for the uncertainty this caused him. I have not investigated Mr F's complaints about the ongoing authorisation of Mrs X's Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard or the Council's best interest decision to keep Mrs X at the care home. This is because the Court of Protection is considering these matters. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (19 017 084) Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of her daughter, Ms Y, about the Council's re-assessment of Ms Y's care and support needs. The Ombudsman found no fault in the Council's decision to re-assess Ms Y's needs. There were problems in the assessment process, but the Council worked with Ms X to resolve them. The Council was at fault for delays putting in place an increase to Ms Y's direct payments and for not offering Ms X a carer's assessment. It agreed to offer a remedy. Agudas Israel Housing Association Limited (20 004 372) Summary: Ms X complained about the care home's treatment of her friend, Mrs Y, when giving end of life care, which caused distress to both of them. The Care Provider was not at fault. East Sussex County Council (20 008 340) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint that he was not told by the Council not to gift his mother's, Mrs C's money as she requested. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman. Milton Keynes Council (20 008 633) Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaint about the Council's safeguarding investigation into the care her late father, Mr C received. This is because any further investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to make a different finding to that already uncovered by the investigation or provide Ms B with the outcome she wants. Sadly, Mr C is now deceased so any injustice caused to him by his care provider cannot be remedied. Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (19 005 019) Summary: Ms X complained the care home failed to provide the contracted accommodation she agreed to. The care home has accepted fault for not providing the contracted accommodation and delays in handling the complaint. The care home reduced the balance owed by £2,000. The Ombudsman considers this reduction a suitable way to remedy the injustice caused. The Care Home offered to remove the final seven days' worth of charges due to Ms X vacating the room. The Ombudsman considers this reduction appropriate. London Borough of Brent (19 015 810) Summary: The Council was entitled to decide to apply contact restrictions to the complainant because of the volume of his correspondence. The Council was at fault because it did not set a review period for the restrictions, in accordance with its policy, and also because its records of the restrictions it imposed are difficult to follow. Neither of these faults caused an injustice to the complainant, but the Council should take steps to address them. The Council was also at fault for the delay in a complaint response, but this also did not cause an injustice. Bracknell Forest Council (19 020 958) Summary: The complainants say the Council failed to properly consider an application for a blue badge under the 'hidden disability' criteria. The Council says it followed government guidance and took into consideration the view of a suitably qualified healthcare professional. We find the Council acted without fault. West Sussex County Council (20 002 830) Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's decision to pursue him for his mother's debt. He says there are no funds left in his mother's estate to pay the invoice. We find fault with the Council for not sending prompt reminders to Mr X about his mother's debt. However, we do not consider the fault caused Mr X any injustice. We do not find fault with the Council for its other actions. Stephen Greach (20 003 406) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the care provided by the care home. This is because the care was funded by the NHS and therefore outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. Cumbria County Council (20 008 277) Summary: Ms X complains about the Council's handling of the placement of her father in a care home in 2017. We will not investigate the complaint because the events happened too long ago. Surrey County Council (20 004 154) Summary: The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for reducing support for Mr X's eligible care needs without discussing this with him, and for delaying reassessing his needs. This caused Mr X avoidable distress and uncertainty. The Ombudsman also finds fault with the Council for not assessing Mr X's parents support needs, for not considering Mr X's previous history in decision making, and for poor complaint handling. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, and pay him and his parents in recognition of the distress and delay caused. The Council has also agreed to reinstate Mr X's previous support until it can reassess his eligible care needs and assess his parents for support. The Council will also review its procedures for reviewing eligible care needs, recording information and how it communicates with service users where their case is being transferred. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (19 014 618) Summary: There was an incident where a care agency failed to give Mrs C her medication. The Council addressed the problem appropriately by starting a safeguarding investigation and preventing any repeat of the problem. There was some fault in the Council's assessment of Mr B's needs as a carer and the Council has agreed to offer Mr B a further assessment. London Borough of Lambeth (19 016 507) Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain about the way the Council conducted a safeguarding enquiry into injuries to their daughter while she was in respite care. We have upheld parts of their complaint and made recommendations to the Council. The Council has accepted our recommendations, so we have completed our investigation. Minster Care Management Limited (19 016 901) Summary: We have found fault in the way the Home communicated with Mrs C and her family about a lift being out of service, its failure to offer Mrs C any alternative way to leave the Home for three months and its failure to properly respond to Mrs C's complaint. The Home has agreed to apologise, to provide a financial remedy and to write to other residents who may have been similarly affected. London Borough of Redbridge (20 005 377) Summary: Miss D complains the Council has failed to arrange care and support for her adult nephew and about its decision not to provide him with supported living accommodation. We find there was fault which has caused Mr J's needs not to be met and stress to Miss D. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr J and Miss D to acknowledge this injustice. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (19 020 401) Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of her mother, Mrs Y, about the standard of care provided and that the Council is unreasonably demanding payment for the poor care. The information provided shows there were some late calls and visits with only one carer. While this is fault, Mrs Y received care in excess of the amount she was charged and so there is no basis to recommend a refund of charges. London Borough of Hillingdon (20 000 568) Summary: the complainant complains the Council delayed designing and completing adaptations to her home resulting in her sharing a room with one of her children for longer than necessary. The Council says the delay reflects some of the changes in design the complainant wanted. The Council also sought alternative housing for the complainant but without success. The Council recognised faults and offered a remedy. The Ombudsman finds the Council acted with fault and recommends a further remedy. Leeds City Council (20 008 077) Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's response to the actions of a member of staff who accessed his family's records without legitimate reason. We will not investigate the complaint because an investigation would not lead to the outcome Mr X seeks and he can appeal to the Information Commissioner. Suffolk County Council (18 012 545) Summary: Mr R, complains the Council did not carry out an assessment of his care needs before his discharge from hospital. The Ombudsman upholds the complaint. Our view is the Council has made a suitable offer of a remedy. Support Carers Limited (19 019 273) Summary: Mr X complained that Support Carers Limited pursued him for care fees he did not owe. He also complains the Provider blocked his calls when he called to discuss the fees. We have found no evidence of fault by the Provider. Sunderland City Council (19 007 952) Summary: The Council is not at fault for starting safeguarding procedures or contacting other bodies about its concerns. Northamptonshire County Council (19 015 549) Summary: Mrs B, complains for her adult disabled son, Mr C, about the actions of the Council about his care and safeguarding. The Ombudsman finds no fault by the Council. 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