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. Anchor Hanover Group (19 020 682) Summary: Mrs D complained about the quality of care her late mother, Mrs E, received from the Care Provider. She also complained it failed to address her complaints. We find the Care Provider caused injustice when it failed to keep accurate records, failed to adequately care for Mrs E, failed to follow Mrs E's care plan and failed to communicate effectively with Mrs D. The Care Provider also failed to deal with Mrs D's complaints according to its complaints policy. The Care Provider has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused. HC-One Oval Limited (20 003 652) Summary: The Ombudsman finds the care provider caused Mrs X an injustice in failing to provide satisfactory care to her. This includes poor hygiene and nutrition levels, and for failing to adhere to its own risk assessments. The care provider has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay a financial remedy. Kent County Council (20 005 027) Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to treat savings in his wife's sole bank account as a joint asset when calculating her contribution towards the cost of her residential care. We find the Council was not at fault in treating the savings as belonging solely to Mrs X. Kent County Council (20 006 958) Summary: The Ombudsmen have decided not to investigate a complaint about mental health care being transferred from an NHS Trust to a Council without telling the family. This is because although there appears to have been fault, this has been acknowledged and the organisations have already taken action to put these right. We are therefore unlikely to achieve more by investigating. Wolverhampton City Council (20 007 401) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to carry out a safeguarding investigation into his concerns about the care home where his late mother had lived. He felt there were errors in how the care home cared for her hearing. We have discontinued the investigation as we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by investigating the complaint now. HC-One Oval Limited (20 007 882) Summary: Mrs C complained about the way the care home responded to her mother's falls. We found with the care provider's actions. The care provider has agreed to apologise to Mrs C and her mother and pay each of them a financial remedy for the distress they experienced. It will also share the lessons learned with its staff. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (20 008 689) Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her brother, Mr Y, about his care assessment and care provided by the Council. Mrs X said that Mr Y was coming to physical harm because of this. We will not investigate this complaint because there is a more appropriate person to represent Mr Y. Alysia Caring Limited (20 011 134) Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaint about errors in her care plan. This is because the care provider has apologised for the fault and we are satisfied this remedies the injustice caused to Ms B. Portsmouth City Council (20 011 689) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint that the Council has caused a rift between her and her mother, Mrs C. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. Coton Care Limited (20 013 128) Summary: Mr X complained, in 2019, the care home failed to properly care for his late mother Mrs Y's hearing which made her deafness worse. We have discontinued the investigation because the complaint is late and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by investigating this matter now. Lincolnshire County Council (20 004 464) Summary: There is no fault in the Council's decision making during the financial assessment process. The Council has considered the law, guidance and reached a decision that deprivation of capital has occurred. The Council has reached a view on the amount of capital it will disregard without fault. New explanations of the gifting made at appeal had not been made to the Council before and it is at the Council's discretion if it wants to consider a new assessment of this information. Northumberland County Council (20 007 684) Summary: We upheld some of Mr X's complaints about a council's involvement with his mother Mrs Y when she went into a care home. There was a failure to signpost Mrs Y to independent financial advice and a failure to carry out a social care assessment. And the Council's complaint response contained unhelpful, irrelevant detail. The Council will apologise for the avoidable distress to Mr X. Portsmouth City Council (20 010 044) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about Council officers suspecting he had taken his mother's medication. This is because it is unlikely an investigation could add to the response already provided by the Council's investigation. Birmingham City Council (20 010 841) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a social worker contacting his GP practice in response to an anonymous call raising concerns about his mental health. This is because it is unlikely an investigation by us could add to the response already provided by the Council. Burlington Care (Yorkshire) Limited (19 018 311) Summary: Mr X said the Burlington care home his father, Mr Y, stayed at for respite failed to care for him properly. He says Mr Y suffered injustice because of avoidable falls, isolation and weight loss. Mr X says he was personally affected because he was effectively 'on call' to help with Mr Y's care and he does not consider he should have to pay the full invoice for poor care. We consider the home should have taken more care over Mr Y's admission. Although it says it admits dementia residents, it is not a dementia unit and should have exercised caution at admission. However, it was not fully informed of Mr Y's condition. To bring about resolution, I have recommended that the home reduce Mr Y's invoice. Cheshire West & Chester Council (20 000 228) Summary: Mrs B complained in respect of her mother Mrs C about the actions the actions taken by a Care Provider supported by the Council, when Mrs C's behaviour escalated on two occasions. She complains that Mrs C was in effect evicted from the Care Provider's care home and spent 40 days in hospital unnecessarily. We find some fault in the Council's actions and it has agreed to pay Mrs B £350 for the injustice caused. South Gloucestershire Council (20 001 852) Summary: Miss E complains about the care her father received in a nursing home. She says poor care led to his avoidable death. We do not find any fault. Mr E was approaching the end of his life. The care provider gave him appropriate end of life care, including following instructions from other organisations. So we do not uphold the complaint. Parkcare Homes Limited (20 008 237) Summary: Miss X complains the care provider lost or damaged her mother's possessions. We will not investigate Miss X's complaint. This is because it is unlikely we could add anything to the care provider's response and it is reasonable for Miss X to use the legal remedy available to her. Norfolk County Council (20 009 935) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's failure to communicate with him about his mother's care. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (20 004 864) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint about the actions of the Council regarding her father's, Mr C's, financial assessment. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. Manchester City Council (20 010 109) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about his mother Mrs X paying a significant top-up payment for her nursing home placement since 2017. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now. London Borough of Lambeth (20 011 002) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to issue the complainant with a Blue Badge. This is because the Council has reviewed the application and decided to issue a badge. Cumbria County Council (20 003 857) Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaint about the Councils failure to provide care and support when requested. This is because the Council has apologised for the failings in this case and advised Ms B it has restructured its short-term care team to minimise the risk of a similar occurrence. It is unlikely further investigation could add to this or make a different finding. Lancashire County Council (20 003 920) Summary: Mrs B complained that a Care Provider commissioned by the Council terminated her mother's place at the home unreasonably because a family member did not wish to provide their contact details. We found fault because the Council took no action to mediate between the parties to try and resolve the situation. The Council has agreed to pay £200 to Mrs B and improve its approach in future cases. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (19 004 532) Summary: Mr X complained about poor care provided to his mother, Mrs Y, as part of a Council-commissioned care package. He also says a later safeguarding investigation was inadequate and the Council managed his complaint poorly. There was poor care which caused Mrs Y some distress. The Council will pay Mrs Y £250 to acknowledge the distress caused. The care provider, Sevacare, and the Council have acted to improve care services in future. The Council considered possible safeguarding issues appropriately but there was delay in its investigation of the concerns about poor care. The Council will pay Mr X and Mrs Y £100 each to remedy the frustration and uncertainty caused by the delay. Sevacare has apologised for its delay responding to Mr X's complaint and that is an appropriate remedy. Nottinghamshire County Council (19 015 380) Summary: We upheld one of Mr X's complaints. There was poor communication by the Council because it did not write to him to say it was commissioning an agency to do his care after stopping his direct payment. This caused Mr X avoidable distress for which the Council will apologise. There was no fault in transferring Mr X's case from the mental health to adult social care team and no evidence a social worker verbally attacked one of Mr X's personal assistants. Oxfordshire County Council (19 018 745) Summary: There is no evidence the Council failed to consider the safeguarding alert properly. Mr X had capacity to make his own decisions about his visitors and who managed his finances. Health Care Management Trust (20 005 028) Summary: Ms X complained about the quality of care provided to her late mother at a care home. We have discontinued the investigation as Ms X's sibling has started legal action against the care provider and this will consider matters raised in the complaint. Lancashire County Council (20 011 597) Summary: We will not investigate Ms C's late complaint about the actions of the Council in 2018 and its decision to stop her care package in 2019. This is because Ms C could have come to us sooner if she was unhappy with the Council's decision not to provide her with care. Classic Home Care Services Limited (20 003 594) Summary: Ms Y complained on behalf of a relative, Mrs Z, about Classic Home Care Services (CHCS) Limited which provided privately-arranged care at home. Ms Y complained the level of care was increased unnecessarily and without consideration of affordability. Ms Y also complained that CHCS failed to inform her about matters relating to Mrs Z's care. We found no evidence the actions of the care provider were at fault causing injustice to Mrs Z. 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