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. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (19 010 849) Summary: There was fault in the way the Council decided whether some costs should be considered as a disability related expenditure. The Council did not properly consider Mr B's individual circumstances and disability and this caused unnecessary delay in the decision. The Council has agreed to apologise and provide a financial remedy. Bupa Care Homes (CFC Homes) Limited (19 011 992) Summary: Mrs Y complains about the care provided to her late mother, Mrs X, in a nursing home in the way she was moved and handled during an assessment. Mrs Y says this caused Mrs X and the family distress. The Ombudsman finds fault in the Care Provider's actions which caused injustice. The Care Home has agreed to apologise to Mrs Y, make a payment to her to acknowledge the impact of its fault, share this statement with its complaints team for learning, and arrange up-to-date manual handling training for staff. Leeds City Council (19 016 019) Summary: There is evidence of some failings in the care provided to Mr Y. I do not consider any significant injustice was caused to Mr Y or Mr X. I am also satisfied the Care Provider and the Council responded adequately to the concerns Mr X raised. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council monitored the care provided to Mr Y. There is no outstanding injustice that requires a remedy. Manchester City Council (19 019 250) Summary: The Council was at fault in the drafting of Mrs X's care plan and the response to Ms A's first complaint. It reviewed the response and upheld some aspects of the complaint but there was a delay. It agrees to apologise for the distress and anxiety caused by the omissions and delay in its processes and offer Mrs X a sum in recognition of that. It also agrees to expedite the annual review of Mrs X's needs. It was not at fault in taking into account her Disability Living Allowance as part of her income. Promedica24 (Lancashire) Limited (19 020 763) Summary: Mrs X complained about the home care service provided by Promedica24 (Lancashire) Limited. We have found fault because Mrs X was not provided with person-centred care that was suitable for a person with dementia. We cannot say this caused a deterioration in Mrs X's health, but we are satisfied it caused distress to Mrs X that requires a remedy. To remedy this injustice, Promedica24 (Lancashire) Limited has agreed to apologise, cancel notice period charges, and make a payment to Mrs X. It has also agreed to ensure appropriate training is provided to the relevant personnel. Haversham House Limited (20 000 752) Summary: Ms C complained on behalf of her father that care provided to him by Haversham House Limited was unsafe. Ms C complained that her father was neglected and suffered mental and physical distress. We found fault by the care provider in some aspects of his care. An apology has been agreed to acknowledge the resultant injustice. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (20 001 367) Summary: There was no significant fault in the Council's handling of a safeguarding enquiry. For this reason, we have completed our investigation. London Residential Healthcare Limited (20 003 469) Summary: Mrs B complained about the care her late father received at one of the Provider's care homes. There was fault in the Care Home's record-keeping and its complaints handling, causing distress and uncertainty to Mrs B about the care her father received. It has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and reduce the amount she owes for Mr X's care. It also agreed to review its processes and ensure its staff follow its policies and procedures. Norfolk County Council (20 003 947) Summary: There was fault by the Council in the way it managed a transition between care providers and poor communication about whether or not Mr Y could bank unused care hours. This caused confusion, avoidable distress and a gap of three months in Mr Y's care provision. The Council has already taken some action to remedy the injustice by crediting/waiving charges. It will also make payments of £250 and £1000 to Ms X and Mr Y respectively and offer a further apology. Blackburn with Darwen Council (20 004 504) Summary: The Council's offer to reimburse the overpayment by Mr X to the care provider while Mrs Y was still a full-cost payer remedies any outstanding injustice. Surrey County Council (20 004 804) Summary: The Council was at fault in the way it handled an increase in a person's residential care fees. It fettered its discretion by adhering to a rigid interpretation of its fee guidelines, and also allowed an informal third-party top-up arrangement, both of which conflict with the statutory guidance. The Council has agreed to remedy this by reimbursing the money paid via this arrangement. We cannot investigate a separate complaint, about Council Tax and the way the Council has set its general budget, because this affects all or most people in the area and so falls outside our jurisdiction. Hampshire County Council (20 009 722) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr B's complaints about his mother's Mrs C's Mental Capacity and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards assessments. This is because only a court can determine disputes about capacity and Mr B's concerns have been lodged with the court. Surrey County Council (20 010 031) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint about the way her late mother, Mrs C, was treated by her care provider. This is because any further investigation by the Ombudsman could not make a different finding or provide Mrs B with a different outcome to that provided by the Council. Cornwall Council (19 014 633) Summary: The Ombudsman has found fault with the way the Council assessed Mr C's finances to decide whether he was eligible for Council funding. The Council's care home fees charges may be too high. The Council has agreed to apologise and carry out a fresh financial assessment. London Borough of Islington (19 015 143) Summary: The complainant, Mr B, said the Council and the NHS Trust failed to safeguard his vulnerable adult brother from financial abuse between 2010 and 2015 when he lived in a supported housing placement. We found the Council had sufficient safeguards in place in line with its safeguarding responsibilities. The Trust had a policy in place to safeguard patients' property and valuables but its investigation highlighted weaknesses around managing patient's finances and cash handling. The Trust's investigation is enough to remedy doubt the complainant may have about its handling of his brother's finances. The Trust agreed to our recommendations and will tell us what it has done to improve since it became aware of the weaknesses in its processes. It will also write to the complainant. Staffordshire County Council (19 020 766) Summary: We have upheld Mrs X's complaint about services to her as a carer and about poor communication and complaint handling. To remedy the injustice, the Council will apologise, make her a symbolic payment and take other action to improve its services described in this statement. Sheffield City Council (19 020 813) Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed providing a care package for her adult son. The Council was at fault. It took too long, failed to properly consider whether to award transport costs, failed to review the plan and inappropriately questioned a prospective personal assistant as part of the process. It has agreed to apologise and make payments to Ms X and her son to acknowledge the frustration and distress this caused. It has also agreed to review the care package. London Borough Of Barnet (19 021 064) Summary: Mr B complains about the care and support provided to his wife's late cousin, Miss J, while resident in a home partly funded by the Council and the Clinical Commissioning Group. Mr B says Miss J suffered continuous weight loss and was unlawfully strapped to a chair for long periods by the Home during the last six months of her life. Mr B also complained about the decision to discharge Miss J from hospital and a failure to readmit her to hospital. Mr B's complaint to the Ombudsmen is late and it is unlikely we can add to the previous investigation completed by the Council or achieve the outcome he wants. Cornwall Council (20 001 282) Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with the arrangements for his sister's care, and its payment for the care he and his mother provided, during the period between the care packages it commissioned for her. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council causing injustice. It has agreed to remedy this by making an apology and financial payments. Ranc Care Homes Limited (20 001 936) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of care provided in a residential care home. This is because we could not achieve a worthwhile outcome or add anything further to the Care Provider's response. Chantry Court Care Ltd (20 003 986) Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaint about the actions of her late father's, Mr C's care provider. This is because any further investigation could not provide Ms B with a different outcome to that she has received from Mr C's care provider. Leicester City Council (20 005 451) Summary: Mr B complained about historical allegations made about him in 2017 which the Council investigated under its safeguarding procedures. He said the Council did not tell him it had recorded the allegations in line with its safeguarding procedures. Mr B complains this meant that in 2019 the NHS Trust acted on the historical allegations to restrict visits to his daughter who is under the care of the Trust. Mr B's complaint about the historical allegations is late and he could have complained to us earlier. We cannot achieve the outcome he wants. Mr B can complain to us about more recent matters once the Trust has sent him a final response. London Borough of Camden (20 007 630) Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaint about the way the Council determined her application for a blue badge. This is because the Council has confirmed Ms B has been awarded a blue badge so there is no unremedied injustice warranting an Ombudsman investigation. Sunderland City Council (20 009 277) Summary: Ms X complained about issues related to her daughter's supported living placement. We cannot investigate the complaint. This is because the issues Ms X complained about have either been considered by the Court of Protection or are inextricably linked to the Court's ongoing proceedings. Nottinghamshire County Council (20 009 408) Summary: I will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to refer the complainant to Social Work England. This is because we are unlikely to find fault in the way the decision was taken. Norfolk County Council (20 009 546) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint about care provided to her late father, Mr C. This is because Mr C is now deceased so any injustice caused to him from the Council's actions cannot be remedied. Mrs B can ask the NHS to undertake a retrospective Continuing Health Care assessment and any injustice caused to Mrs B from the Council's actions has been remedied. Prestige Care (Sand Banks) Limited (20 009 769) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the way his mother's, Mrs C's, care provider has communicated with him. This is because the actions of Mrs C's care provider have not caused a significant enough injustice to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. The Care provider has apologised for comments made by staff Mr B feels are disrespectful, and the Ombudsman is satisfied this remedies any injustice caused to him. Derby City Council (19 021 068) Summary: Ms X complained the Council stopped her Direct Payments without explanation and sent Council employees to her home who behaved in a threatening, unprofessional manner. Ms X said this situation caused her distress and restricted her from socialising and carrying out her daily activities. The Council was not at fault when it decided to stop Ms X's Direct Payments and there is no evidence of fault in the way its employees interacted with her. Gloucestershire County Council (20 000 225) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to inform him or his brother's Care Home that his brother, Mr Z was a self-funder. The Council provided both Mr X and the Care Home with timely information about Mr Z's status as a self-funder. It was at fault when it continued to pay Mr Z's fees to the Care Home, but this did not cause an injustice. Ross Healthcare Limited (20 000 434) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the level of fees charged for a residential placement. This is because we are unlikely to find fault causing injustice with the actions of the Care Provider. Avery Healthcare Group (20 000 896) Summary: Mr X complained about the care provided to his late mother, Mrs Y, at Darwin Court Care Home. There was no fault in the personal care provided to Mrs Y or in the way the care provider investigated an allegation she was assaulted. There was fault when it moved Mrs Y to a high dependency dementia unit without involving relatives and in its failure to clearly explain how funded nursing care affected the care fees. Mrs Y was not overcharged for her care but the care provider has agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £200 to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty caused by these faults. It has also agreed to review its procedures to prevent these faults recurring. North Yorkshire County Council (20 002 410) Summary: the Council delayed completing carers assessments, failed to respond to Ms B's communications and delayed considering her complaint. That meant Ms B missed out on respite provision in 2019 and 2020 and led to her going to time and trouble to pursue her complaint. An apology, payment to Ms B and procedural changes are satisfactory remedy. Cumbria County Council (19 012 119) Summary: we discontinued our investigation into the complaint the Council failed to properly consider the complainant's mother's best interests when placing her in a care home because the complainant had recourse to an alternative remedy. The Council has provided a remedy agreed through an out of court settlement placing the matter outside our jurisdiction. West Sussex County Council (19 018 597) Summary: Ms B complained that the Council reduced her daughter's personal budget despite the fact her needs had not changed and paid an incorrect direct payment each week. She also said it failed to complete a carer's assessment for her. We found the Council was at fault in paying Ms B less than it should have towards recruitment costs, but it has now rectified this. It also failed to check whether Ms B still wanted a carer's assessment in light of information provided by Carer's Support which completes assessments on the Council's behalf. However, this did not cause her a significant injustice. Royal Borough of Greenwich (19 020 392) Summary: The complaint is made on behalf of Mr H, an autistic service user with learning difficulties. It is about a review of his care and support plan, including changes to the times of support and increased support to monitor Mr H take his medication. We uphold the complaint. Our view is the Council was not at fault for seeking to assess whether Mr H could gain more independence – a key aim of the Care Act. But the way the Council implemented short-term changes did not sufficiently consider how Mr H's autism might affect his response to questions and his reaction to the changes. There was also fault in medicine administration records. Liverpool City Council (20 001 238) Summary: Mr C complains on behalf of Ms B and her mother Mrs B that the Council unreasonably delayed between October 2018 and February 2019 in confirming it would allow direct payments and refused to backdate these payments to October 2018. We have stopped investigating this complaint because the Council has taken action which has resolved the outstanding issue and no further action by the Ombudsman is needed. London Borough of Ealing (20 001 319) Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to assess Mrs C's care needs properly and caused delays in her assessments. She said, as a result, Mrs C's care plan was not meeting her needs and she experienced distress because of the delays. The Council was at fault for its failure to assess all of Mrs C's care needs and some of the delay in assessing her needs. It has agreed to apologise and make payment to acknowledge her loss of care provision and the delays caused. It also agreed to reassess Mrs C's care needs and ensure its staff are aware of its statutory responsibilities when carrying out care assessments. West Sussex County Council (20 009 364) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions in relation to safeguarding concerns the complainant raised about his brother. This is because we cannot add anything to the previous investigations into his concerns of change the outcomes. Additionally, the complainant is not a suitable representative to complain on behalf of his brother. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (20 010 416) Summary: We cannot investigate the complaint about a referral to a health care provider because the Council did not take the action Mr X complains about. Liverpool and Sefton Homecare Limited (20 000 716) Summary: Miss C complained about the domiciliary care package provided to her late mother. Miss C said her mother paid for care she did not receive and her family had to provide personal care. We have found fault as some care outcomes were not consistently achieved but consider the agreed actions of an apology, partial refund of fees and procedural improvements provide a suitable remedy. Amberley Lodge - Purley (20 004 819a) Summary: Ms A has complained about a care home and GP regarding their response to a fall her mother suffered in March 2020. The care home has already apologised for its delay in communicating with the family and there is nothing more we could achieve. We will not investigate this case as we are unlikely to find any further fault or add to the previous investigation by the care provider. 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