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. Stocks Hall Care Homes Ltd (19 015 787) Summary: Mrs C complained about how the Care Home terminated her father, Mr D's, placement. The Care Home has not properly considered how the move would affect Mr D or explored alternative ways of meeting his needs. The Care Home will take steps to remedy the injustice Mr D has suffered. North Yorkshire County Council (19 018 824) Summary: The Council's commissioned care provider failed to take precautions to protect the late Mrs Y's skin integrity in accordance with her risk assessments. It also failed to seek the correct medical help promptly. The Council's safeguarding investigation was at fault in finding the home had acted appropriately when it had gathered evidence to the contrary. The Council will now offer Mr X an apology and a sum in recognition of the distress its actions caused. Lancashire County Council (19 019 371) Summary: The Council failed to communicate properly with the late Mrs X. Officers wrote to her at the wrong address and telephoned her when she could no longer speak. Its actions caused significant distress in Mrs X's last months, and the Council will now apologise to her daughter Ms Y, review its processes and offer a sum in recognition of the distress. Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (19 021 105) Summary: The Care Provider failed to properly communicate with Ms X about the breakdown of a heating boiler at a care home her parents resided in. It acknowledged it could have dealt with her enquiries about this, and subsequent complaints better. Northumberland County Council (20 001 884) Summary: Mr C complained the Council has failed to increase Mr X's Personal Budget along with inflations, as a result of which he does not receive enough money anymore to meet his needs. We found the Council identified the correct steps to resolve the issue, which was a reassessment of Mr X's needs. As such, we discontinued our investigation because nothing further could be achieved for Mr X. Excell Home Care Limited (20 002 593) Summary: The investigation into this complaint will be discontinued. The care company has now offered to waive all outstanding charges, and refund Mrs Y the retainer fee she paid London Borough of Ealing (20 003 066) Summary: There was no fault in the care the Council-commissioned care home provided to Ms X's father, Mr Y. The Council also appropriately investigated and responded to Ms X's complaint. Isle of Wight Council (20 006 407) Summary: There is evidence to show Mr and Mrs X agreed to Mr X's discharge to a care home while Mrs X had surgery, and that the Council gave them proper information about the financial implications. London Borough of Wandsworth (20 010 686) 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. Lancashire County Council (19 009 821) Summary: Mr X complained the Council reassessed his care needs and reduced his personal budget. The Council was not at fault for the way in which it assessed Mr X's needs. It was at fault for allowing the situation to drift when Mr X refused to cooperate in developing a revised support plan. This did not cause Mr X an injustice as his personal budget was not reduced. Milton Keynes Council (20 001 041) Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to meet his son's care needs since shortly after the country went into lockdown because of COVID-19. The Council was at fault for telling Mr X it would be able to reinstate his son's pre-COVID-19 respite care when that was not possible. The Council needs to apologise and recognise the lack of trust this caused. London Borough of Hillingdon (20 002 529) Summary: Miss X complained the Council refused to backdate her late mother's financial assessment to disregard her property. The Council was not at fault. It carried out Mrs F's financial assessment without fault when it decided not to disregard her property in 2018. The Council disregarded the property from December 2019 onwards after Miss X provided it with new information. However, there was no obligation for the Council to backdate this to 2018. London Borough Of Barnet (20 007 509) Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaint about the Council's delay in considering her appeal for a blue badge. This is because the Council has now considered Ms B's appeal and decided she should be awarded a blue badge. We could not achieve any more than this. Cumbria County Council (19 009 173) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to assess, or review, his, his wife's or adult son's social care needs. The Council was not at fault in the way it offered to assess their needs. Cherry Tree Care Limited (19 009 351) Summary: Mrs Y complains on behalf of her late husband, Mr Y, that Cherrytree Residential Home failed to provide the required period of notice before asking him to leave, and retained the fees paid for the following month. We find no evidence that the home asked Mr Y to leave. On the balance of probabilities, it appears more likely than not that Mrs Y chose to move Mr Y. The home was therefore entitled to retain the fee paid as the requirement to serve 28 days' notice is made clear in the contract signed by Mrs Y. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (20 002 876) Summary: Mr B complained about the way the Council tried to collect outstanding residential care charges following the death of his father (Mr C) in January 2019. We found the Council delayed in providing accurate and clear information about the outstanding charges. The Council has agreed to pay Mr B £300 which can be offset against the outstanding charges. Warwickshire County Council (20 003 583) Summary: The Council failed to offer an available and suitable nursing home within the individual's personal budget. The individual moved to a care home above their personal budget. The Council should have covered the full cost and not asked for a top-up payment, because there was no suitable alternative. The Council will waive the top-up and apologise for its poor financial information. The Council will remind staff to clearly document the availability and suitability of care homes, provide simple and clear financial advice, and show it has met its duties under the Care Act 2014. Kent County Council (20 005 238) Summary: Mr B complained the Council reduced the number of hours his son, C was entitled to on his care plan without proper consultation. Mr B says the actions of the Council have led to C becoming withdrawn and depressed and has had a harmful effect on his health. We find fault with the Council's handling and implementation of reducing C's agreed care hours. An injustice has been caused to both C and Mr B. To remedy the injustice the Council has agreed to apologise to C and Mr B, pay a financial remedy to both of them, review and reinstate C's care and support hours and learn from this complaint. The Council has also agreed to review all other cases affected by similar fault. Corner House Care Limited (20 006 782) Summary: Mrs C complained her sister's care home threw away her sister's clothes after she had passed away, even though Mrs C had repeatedly told the home the family wanted to collect them. Mrs C complained the care home also failed to establish how this happened and says the whole event has caused her a lot of distress at an already very difficult time. We found fault with the actions of the care provider. While the care provider has agreed to provide an apology, it has not agreed to pay the financial remedy we recommended, which it believes to be too high. We have given the care provider 30 days to comply, before we will start the process of issuing an Adverse Finding Notice. London Borough of Islington (19 019 259) Summary: The Council was at fault for the delay in its safeguarding investigation about Mrs Y. This did not result in a significant injustice as the evidence shows that Mrs Y was well looked after and happy during this delay period. We have completed our investigation. Agincare UK Limited (19 020 058) Summary: The care provider failed to keep records as is required. It also failed to properly investigate the complaint into this matter and to implement the recommendations made in its response. In recognition of the injustice caused by these failings we recommended the care provider refunds Mr Y's care costs for the month prior to his death, apologises to his family, amends its procedures and reminds its staff of the conduct it expects from them. The care provider agreed. Regal Care Trading Ltd (20 002 828) Summary: Mrs X, complains Blenheim Care Home failed to look after her father, Mr Y, properly, resulting in him spending time in hospital. Blenheim Care Home was ill equipped to deal with the demands arising from COVID-19. It failed to meet Mr Y's needs or identify the fact he was unwell. Regal Care needs to apologise to Mrs X and pay financial redress to Mr Y. Uttlesford District Council (20 005 667) Summary: Mrs and Mr C complained about the time it took the Council to realise her proposed extensions would be too expensive, and it should therefore pursue alternatives instead. This resulted in an unreasonable delay in providing her with a long-term solution in terms of her accommodation. We have upheld the complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs and Mr C and pay her £7,000 for the significant distress and inconvenience these delays caused her. London Borough of Lambeth (20 006 187) Summary: There is evidence of fault in this complaint. The Council failed to properly consider Ms X's application for a blue badge. North Yorkshire County Council (20 001 018) Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not tell him about its plans to apply to be a deputy for his mother's financial and property affairs. He also complains the Council mismanaged his mother's finances and did not involve him in the decision regarding his mother's funeral plan. We find fault with the Council for not contacting Mr X before the best interest meeting to decide on his mother's funeral plan. We do not find fault with the Council's other actions. Sheffield City Council (20 001 616) Summary: The Council considered all the relevant information about the disposal of Mrs X's property before it reached a decision that she should pay her own care charges. It considered Mrs Y's appeals properly. Sheffield City Council (20 004 908) Summary: There is evidence of fault in this complaint. The Council failed to undertake an adequate assessment of Mrs X's mobility in considering her application for a renewal of a concessionary travel pass. Durham County Council (20 010 744) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an allegation of false statements made by the Council in a court hearing. We cannot investigate matters that have been to court. The Council has apologised for not including the complainant in his mothers' emergency contacts list and rectified the matter. It is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different result to that provided by the Council. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (19 011 819) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council repeatedly incorrectly billed her for care. She says the Council's communication about direct payments was poor and its approach has caused her distress. The Council is at fault for being unable to fully evidence communication with Mrs X about her care package. I have not found evidence of other fault. 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