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. Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (19 010 659) Summary: We found fault with the care and support provided by the Council, Trust and CCG to Miss X, a vulnerable young woman with complex needs. We found this placed Miss X at significant risk in the community and caused her and her family avoidable distress. These organisations have agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay a financial remedy in recognition of the impact of this fault on her. London Borough of Waltham Forest (19 020 245) Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's handling of a disabled facilities grant and related works to provide a bathroom adapted for the needs of her son, Y. She said the work was not completed and the work that was done did not meet Y's needs. The Council was at fault. It will apologise, pay Ms X £1,000 for the inconvenience caused, and take steps to put matters right. Cornwall Council (19 020 372) Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's decision to treat his late mother as having deliberately deprived herself of capital to avoid care charges, resulting in the family having to pay for her care. The Council was at fault for: failing to apply the proper tests for deprivation of capital; for seeking to restrict Mrs Y's personal spending to £30.65 a week when she was funding her own care; and for failing to take proper account of the Office of the Public Guardian's guidance on the scope for gifting. The Council needs to reconsider its decision on the extent to which Mrs Y deprived herself of capital. Nightingale Hammerson (19 020 959) Summary: There is evidence of fault in some aspects of the care provided to Mr & Mrs X during their short stay in a residential care home. The care provider's response to the complaint was factually inaccurate on some points and gave conflicting explanations South Gloucestershire Council (19 021 187) Summary: There is no fault by the Council in the way it undertook a safeguarding investigation into concerns about how Mr & Mrs X managed their adult daughter's finances. It acted properly and in accordance with the law Cambridgeshire County Council (20 008 248) Summary: We will not investigate Mr Q's complaint about the Council's handling of a safeguarding enquiry. This is because the injustice suffered by Mr Q's son is not significant enough, nor is it likely we could add to the Council's own investigation. And it would be reasonable for Mr Q to go to the Information Commissioner or to court if he wants to challenge the accuracy of the Council's records. Warwickshire County Council (19 014 276) Summary: Mr B complained about the way the Council responded to his complaint about a care agency. He believed the Council's response simply accepted the agency's comments. The Council's response appeared to be inadequate. Mr B cannot be satisfied the Council has properly considered his concerns. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice. Lincolnshire County Council (20 000 835) Summary: We have partially upheld Mr S's complaint about his father's discharge from hospital to a residential care home. The Council and Trust have already apologised to Mr S and we consider this a suitable remedy for distress caused to Mr S. The Council says it has already improved its way of working following Mr S's complaint. We have asked for evidence of these improvements and recommended further service improvements. The Council and Trust accept our recommendations, so we have completed our investigation. Sheffield City Council (20 008 245) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an application for a Blue Badge because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council. London Borough of Bexley (20 008 447) Summary: We will not investigate Ms Q's complaint about the care and support the Council gave her brother. This is because Ms Q is not a suitable representative to pursue the complaint. North Yorkshire County Council (20 009 276) Summary: We will not investigate Mr D's late complaint that the Council failed to consider his mitigating circumstances regarding the debt for his late mother's Mrs C's care charges. This is because Council's actions have not caused a significant enough injustice to Mrs C's estate and there is no good reason to disapply the law in this case. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (19 016 531) Summary: The complaint relates to the Council's decision to change the way it provided support to Ms D which led to a reduction in the support package that Ms D received. The Council has assessed Ms D's needs and provided a replacement support package, but there was a lack of clarity in how the Council assessed that the initial care package met Ms D's needs. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms D and pays her £150. Candlelight Homecare Services Ltd (19 020 434) Summary: Candlelight Homecare Service's introductory care agency delayed dealing with concerns raised about a carer, failed to properly investigate the concerns, failed to respond to telephone calls from Mr B and failed to address all the areas of complaint in its complaint response. As Mr B's mother employed the carer directly rather than through the Agency this did not mean the carer remained in place longer than she should have due to the Agency's fault. However, the failures caused Mr B frustration and led to him going to time and trouble to pursue the complaint. Reconsideration of the Agency's complaints procedure, commitment to keeping contemporaneous records, a reminder to officers dealing with complaints and an apology and payment to Mr B is satisfactory remedy. London Borough of Southwark (20 000 327) Summary: Mr X complained Council failed to respond to his questions, or provide details of his late father in law's financial assessments or care charges, and wrongly instructed solicitors to recover the disputed care charges. The Council's failure to provide full and accurate information about Mr Y's liability for his care charges, or how this had been assessed amounts to fault. This fault has caused Mr X an injustice. Surrey County Council (20 001 311) Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed in completing an assessment of her care needs. Miss X says she needed to use her disability benefits to pay for care because of this delay. Miss X also complained the Council has completed the financial assessment of her care needs incorrectly. Miss X says the Council incorrectly asked her to contribute towards her care costs. The Ombudsman found fault with the Council's delay in assessing Miss X's care needs. The Council has accepted a mistake was made with Miss X's financial assessment. The Council agreed to the Ombudsman's recommendation to backdate Miss X's direct payments to June 2019 and correct Miss X's financial assessment. Cheshire West & Chester Council (20 001 922) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's management of the complainants' finances. This is because there is no fault in the actions of the Council. The Orders Of St. John Care Trust (20 001 968) Summary: Mrs B complained of inadequate care given to Mr B during a respite stay in November 2019. The care provider failed to keep adequate records, raised Mrs B's expectations about the provision Mr B would receive, failed to provide adequate care on occasion, failed to properly consider Mr B's diabetes and lost a pair of trousers. That caused Mr B to miss out on some provision, caused Mrs B distress and led to her going to time and trouble to pursue the complaint. A financial payment, training for care home staff and managers, agreement to refund the cost of the missing trousers or replace them and changes to procedures is satisfactory remedy. Gloucestershire County Council (19 019 069) Summary: Ms X complained, on behalf of her brother Mr Z, that the Council failed to complete his care needs assessment and failed to take action regarding the suitability of his current accommodation. The Council put the assessment on hold in November 2018 until alternative accommodation was found. The issue has drifted since then with no decision on his care needs or alternative accommodation found. This delay is fault and a suitable remedy is proposed. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (20 004 455) Summary: The Council failed to properly consider the impact of Miss X's disability before refusing her application for a Blue Badge. The Council should apologise, complete a fresh assessment, and pay Miss X £250. Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (20 005 169) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's late complaint about care provided to her husband, Mr B in 2018 and 2019. This is because Mrs B could have complained to us sooner and there is no good reason for us to disapply the law and investigate this late complaint now. Cornwall Council (20 008 316) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's responses to safeguarding allegations made both by and against the complainant. This is because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council's actions in relation to her, and she does not have consent to bring a complaint or share data relating to the other person involved in this matter. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (19 011 585) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the Council's refusal to pay for him to live in a care home. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with he actions taken by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. Kent County Council (19 021 083) Summary: Mrs B complained on behalf of herself and her son, Mr C, that there was fault in the way the Council reached its decision on payment banding for the Shared Lives placement and that the Council's communication has been poor. We have found no fault in the way the Council reached its decision on payment banding. The Council was at fault in failing to keep Mrs B informed, but its apology represents a satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused by this. The Willows Residential Care Home (20 001 678) Summary: The care provider took prompt action to meet the late Mr X's needs and safeguard other residents, as well as explain to Mrs A the need for 1:1 care. The complaint will not be upheld as the actions of the care provider did not cause injustice to Mr X or Mrs A. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (20 008 079) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about an alleged breach of human rights and the Council's alleged failure to find somewhere suitable for Ms Q to move to. This is because Ms Q has started court action. Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (20 008 344) Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaint about her late mother's, Mrs C's, care provider's refusal to put a no parking sign outside the property she leased. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the care provider warranting an Ombudsman investigation. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (20 008 622) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions under an appointeeship. This is because there is not enough significant injustice caused by the alleged fault. Lancashire County Council (19 008 717) Summary: We found faults by a Council and an NHS Trust resulted in delays in providing support for an individual who had recently been diagnosed with Autism. The organisations have already accepted some faults and taken action to improve the services provided to those diagnosed with Autism. However, the injustice to the complainant was not fully addressed. The organisations have agreed to apologise and pay the complainant £500 to recognise the distress caused by the faults. 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