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. Lincolnshire County Council (19 006 248) Summary: The Council's fixed charge for short-term residential care was not in line with statutory guidance. North Yorkshire County Council (19 012 596) Summary: There was fault in the way the Council assessed Mr and Mrs B's income to decide what contribution Mr B had to pay towards his care package. There was poor communication about the decision making. The Council also did not properly consult before it changed its policy on how it calculated the contribution. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr and Mrs B and offer them a new financial assessment and a financial remedy. The Council has already addressed the change in the policy and reversed the policy. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (19 017 796) Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's handling of a disabled facilities grant for adaptations to their home to meet the needs of her son. Mrs X was given no choice but to use a Home Improvement Agency which cost over £3,000, despite Mrs X having to manage the work. The Council needs to pay Mrs X half the money paid to the Home Improvement Agency to remedy the injustice caused to her. East Sussex County Council (19 019 234) Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's management and investigation of safeguarding concerns she raised regarding her mother. We find no fault with the Council's actions. Kent County Council (20 006 546) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about matters relating to Mr Y's care and welfare. This is because Ms X is not a suitable representative. Kent County Council (20 008 184) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's poor communication relating to her third-party top up payments and invoicing errors. This is because the matter is now resolved and there is nothing further to be achieved by investigating. Kent County Council (19 014 553) Summary: The Council was at fault because it delayed completing Mr F's assessment, care and support plan and in reassessing his disability related expenditure. It also failed to seek expert advice during the assessment. The fault caused a loss of service and avoidable distress. To remedy the injustice, the Council will apologise, make payments, seek specialist advice and review Mr F's care and support plan following that advice. Cheshire East Council (19 018 012) Summary: Ms E complained that the care home where her late grandmother, Mrs F, was a resident took too long to call for an ambulance and her family before she died. She also complained there was a do not attempt resuscitation decision missing from Mrs F's file and her room was not cleaned the day after she died. We find the Council was at fault because there was no process in place to review the do not attempt resuscitation documentation and Mrs F's room was not cleaned after she died. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused. West Sussex County Council (19 018 716) Summary: The Council was not at fault for deciding not to assess Mrs C's needs in December 2019, for its consideration of its safeguarding powers, or for its consideration of her mental capacity. It decided the safeguarding threshold was not met, and it did not have doubts about Mrs C's capacity, so it did not have good reason to ignore her lack of consent for the needs assessment. The Council was at fault for a delay in responding to Mrs C's niece's complaint, but it has already apologised, so no further action is necessary. Chislehurst Care Limited (20 001 154) Summary: Mrs X complained the care provider failed to take action when her late mother, Mrs Y, said she was assaulted during a respite stay at the care home. The care provider was at fault when it failed to take the allegations seriously or refer them to safeguarding. The Council carried out a safeguarding investigation and made recommendations for improvement which the care provider has implemented. The care provider was also at fault for the delay in responding to Mrs X's complaint. It has already apologised for this. Westminster City Council (20 005 527) Summary: Ms X complains about the Care Provider's decision to end a care agreement for her mother. We have discontinued our investigation to allow the Council to investigate the complaint. Essex County Council (19 012 405) Essex County Council (19 012 405) Norfolk County Council (19 015 435) Summary: There was fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Ms C's claim for disability related expenditure (DRE). It gave confusing and inaccurate information and failed to consult an OT. The Council will reassess DRE, backdate if applicable, apologise and amend its records. Kent County Council (19 007 211) Summary: Mrs A says the Council failed to act when she raised safeguarding concerns about her brother and failed to offer a suitable remedy for the failings. The Council dealt with the concerns Mrs A raised about provision of care to her brother properly but failed to progress a deprivation of liberty safeguards application. The Council also delayed inviting Mrs A's parents to a safeguarding meeting after her brother's death. Failure to progress the deprivation of liberty safeguards application has created some uncertainty about whether action would have been taken, has caused Mrs A and her parents frustration and led to Mrs A had to go to time and trouble to pursue her complaint. An apology, payment to Mrs A and her parents, along with the action the Council has already taken to improve communication between its safeguarding and deprivation of liberty safeguards teams is satisfactory remedy. London Borough of Redbridge (19 017 164) Summary: Ms Y on behalf of her mother Mrs X complains about the standard of care provided and in particular the issue of missed care calls. She also complains about the Council's failure to properly investigate her complaints and its failure to complete an adult safeguarding investigation. The Council's failure to act promptly to investigate the complaints means facts were never established regarding missed calls and the other issues. The Council also delayed the safeguarding procedure meaning no conclusion was reached. Essex County Council (19 021 014) Summary: Mr B complained about the way in which the Council dealt with his request for adaptations and about the Council's decision to stop his Direct Payments. We found there was an unreasonable delay in carrying out Mr B's OT assessment, following a request from Mr B's GP. This resulted in distress to Mr B for which the Council has agreed to apologise. Kent County Council (20 004 429) Summary: Ms B complained about the Council's decision not to award her daughter, Ms C, a blue badge. We found no fault with the way the Council considered Ms C's application. But the Council's decision letter failed to provide reasons why it rejected the application causing Ms C distress and frustration. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms C and remind officers that decision letters must contain enough detail for applicants to understand why they were not awarded a blue badge. Dorset Council (19 019 462) Summary: Ms M complained about how the Council assessed her adult son, Mr S's financial contribution towards his social care. She said it did not consider the £400 he contributed monthly to household costs. In addition, she said his mobility allowance was not sufficient to meet his transport costs to and from college. We find the Council was at fault for not considering his monthly contribution to the household in the financial assessment. It was not at fault in how it considered his transport costs. The Council has amended Mr S's financial assessment. That remedies any injustice caused. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (19 019 814) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to safeguard her late mother at Springfield Park Nursing Home and failed to deal properly with her safeguarding concerns. There was a failure to follow the seizure management plan and a delay in calling an ambulance. Although we cannot say this caused harm to Mrs X's mother, the Council needs to apologise to Mrs X for the distress caused and the time and trouble it has put her to. North Yorkshire County Council (19 020 306) Summary: There were delays on the part of the Council in providing the care and support plan, arriving at an appropriate level of support for Mr L's respite and considering the eligibility of some needs for Disability-Related Expenditure (DRE). It was not fault by the Council to advise the family about employment matters in line with national guidance and its own policies. The Council has offered to discuss any exception to its policy with Mr X. Reading Borough Council (20 005 692) Summary: The Council was not at fault in its consideration of Mr X's needs. He requested funding (through direct payments) for a health need which the Council is not legally able to support. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (19 018 895) Summary: Mr X complains the Lakes Care Centre (where the Council placed his late wife for respite care in May/June 2017) failed to look after her properly, resulting in a significant decline in her mental health and her being sectioned under the Mental Health Act. The evidence does not support this claim. 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