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. Athena Healthcare (Park Road) Limited (19 018 572) Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the care provider overcharged them for nursing care Mr X did not require. It has refunded the charges as a goodwill gesture but not accepted it wrongly charged them. The care provider was at fault. It did not inform Mrs X about differing care rates and there is no evidence Mr X had nursing needs. It should have charged Mr X at its residential rate. Mr X has since died, but the care provider should accept its mistake and apologise to Mrs X. It should pay her £250 to acknowledge the lost interest and uncertainty and distress caused by the overpaid charges and review its procedures. It should also carry out a review to see if others were affected by this fault and reimburse anyone overcharged. Staffordshire County Council (19 020 535) Summary: Miss W says the Council failed to arrange for an occupational therapist to assess her son, which was necessary before they could ask the Council to provide an adaption to their home with a Disabled Facilities Grant. The Council is not at fault for this although it should have kept the situation under review as it received information from professionals. Miss W did not know what evidence the Council needed, which caused her time, trouble and distress. The Council is also at fault for failing to properly address Miss W's complaints. Birmingham City Council (20 002 158) Summary: We consider an Approved Mental Health Professional and a Community Psychiatric Nurse appropriately supported Mr L before and after the decision to detain him under section 2 of the Mental Health Act. HC-One Oval Limited (20 002 335) Summary: Mrs C complained about the care home's fee and the way in which the family was informed about it by the care home. We found fault because the care home had charged an incorrect (higher) rate. The care provider has agreed to apologise for this and correct the corresponding invoices. London Borough of Newham (20 002 423) Summary: The Council has properly considered what is reasonable and practical to provide under a Disabled Facilities Grant. Mr C has not received adaptations he needs to his property to meet his adult social care needs, but that is due to a dispute over what is reasonable and practical rather than through any fault of the Council. Northumberland County Council (20 004 092) Summary: The Council has recognised and apologised for faults in a delayed council tax refund, and some aspects of its financial assessments for community support and residential care. I consider the actions taken and the apologies provided are sufficient to remedy the errors made. I do not find fault in the Council's approach to assessing Mr D's finances for charges related to his long-term residential care. It has made legitimate enquiries about withdrawals from a bank account. London Borough of Bromley (20 005 531) Summary: The Council delayed completing a financial assessment to confirm how much Mr C should pay towards his adult social care support. This meant when the charge was confirmed, and the Council sent a bill for the services, Mr C was surprised to find he owed over £3000. The Council has apologised for its delay, and confirmed Mr C can pay the arrears in instalments. This is appropriate action in response, and there is nothing further the Ombudsman can add. Nottinghamshire County Council (20 006 509) Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mr X's complaint about the Councils decision to recover the outstanding care fees for his relative Mr Y. The Council has offered to waive the outstanding care fees which remedies any injustice caused. London Borough of Hackney (20 008 222) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the way the Council considered his application for a Blue Badge. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. We could not add to the Council's response or provide Mr B with a different outcome. Kent County Council (20 009 054) Summary: I will not investigate this complaint about the use of Further Nursing Care funding. This is because there is no fault in the actions of the Council. Leaf Care Services Ltd (20 009 933) Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaint about the delay in her mother's, Mrs C's, care provider returning monies it owed. This is because the care provider has paid back the money it owed Mrs C and apologised for the delay. We are satisfied any injustice caused to Ms B or Mrs C has been remedied. Kent County Council (20 010 060) 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. Nottinghamshire County Council (20 010 177) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's late complaint about the Council charging her late mother, Mrs C, for respite care she received in 2017. This is because Mrs B could have come to the Ombudsman sooner if she was concerned about the charges. There is no good reason to disapply the law and investigate this late complaint. Northamptonshire County Council (19 018 607) Summary: Mr B says the provider commissioned by the Council failed to provide the care it agreed to provide, harassed and bullied him and acknowledged his concerns but made no changes. There is no evidence of harassment or that the provider made no changes following his complaint. The evidence shows Mr B received significant support but the care plan failed to set out the support he could expect which raised his expectations. An apology and changes to the information recorded in care plans is satisfactory remedy. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (19 018 885) Summary: Mrs W complained to us about the residential care the Council arranged for her late husband. We found there were several shortcomings with the support Mr W received, which would have been distressing for him as Mrs W. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy to Mrs W for the distress she experienced. Plymouth City Council (19 019 289) Summary: Mr C complained about the Council's decision to reduce his homecare support, which he says prevents him from doing things in the community that he would like to do. We found there was fault with regards to some aspects of the care review process. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr C and pay a financial remedy for any distress it has caused him. It will also arrange an independent care review of Mr C. City of York Council (19 019 511) Summary: Ms C complained the Council failed to take her specific situation into account, including her need for reasonable adjustments, when it transferred her case to another social worker and throughout her care review. We found fault with regards to some of the Council's actions, especially in relation to the delay in transferring Ms C's case to a new social worker and providing clarity about what would happen to her Direct Payments. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy for any distress it caused Ms C. The Council will also review guidance it provides to clients about what they cannot use a Direct Payment for. Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (20 005 557) Summary: Miss D complained the Council failed to follow procedures when it assessed her care needs and it failed to pay the correct amount for her care support. The Council was at fault for causing delays in enabling Miss D to complete a supported self-assessment and it failed to pay Miss D the correct amount in her Direct Payment. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss D and make payment to acknowledge the loss of care support she received. It also agreed to review Miss D's Direct Payment and ensure it pays her as agreed in her current care and support plan. Miss D also said the Council failed to assess her needs properly in her current care and support plan. There is no evidence of fault by the Council on this matter. And so, therefore the Ombudsman cannot criticise the merits of the Council's decision. Herefordshire Council (20 009 338) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about safeguarding because it is unlikely we would find fault and there is another body better placed to consider the complaint. London Borough of Islington (19 018 941) Summary: The Council acknowledges it failed to provide the proper information about charging when Mrs Y was admitted to a care home for a period of assessment. The Council agrees to waive the charges for the relevant six-week period. London Borough of Newham (19 020 600) Summary: There was fault by the Council. It failed to deal with two requests to increase the fee paid to a care provider. The Council also did not always keep the provider informed of its progress. The Council should apologise to the provider, make a decision, and backdate the payment. London Borough of Waltham Forest (19 021 090) Summary: Mrs X complained about errors and delays during her application to renew her Blue Badge. The Council was at fault. There was delay and it did not keep her informed on the progress of her application. The Council has already apologised to Mrs X for this and taken action to improve its services. This is an appropriate remedy. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (20 005 908) Summary: Mr X complains that the Council failed in its duty of care to keep his father, Mr F, safe in a care home. Mr F was attacked in a care home in 2017 by another resident, causing him physical injury and distress. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because it is late. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (20 009 064) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the Council's actions during his transition from children's to adults services or its decision to transfer his case to the annual review team. This is because we could not add to the Council's responses or make a different finding even if we investigated. Birmingham City Council (20 010 348) Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaint about the Council's actions regarding how it considered her father's Mr C's, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS). This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. London Borough of Newham (19 015 171) Summary: There was fault by the Council. It failed to properly address Miss B's needs as a carer for both her elderly parents for around 21 months. In this time, Miss B did not have a single day off from caring for her parents, she was unable to meet friends, or have any time for herself. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss B and pay her £5,000 in recognition of the impact on her of its failings. It will also review what went wrong in this case, identify lessons learned and implement any changes needed to ensure that these faults do not recur. Oxfordshire County Council (19 017 100) Summary: The Ombudsmen find no fault in a Council and Trust's decision not to implement the recommendations of an investigating officer. The complaints policy sets out that investigations will be subject to senior approval and the Trust provided reasons for setting the investigator's findings aside. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (19 017 147) Summary: The Ombudsman found fault on Mrs W's complaint about the Council failing to promptly process her application for a disabled facilities grant. The failure to include access at the start of the process caused about 3 months delay. The failure to include needed works identified at the start, was also fault. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (19 018 517) Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's actions in relation to her role as Shared Lives carer. She said this has affected her financially. We have not found the Council to be at fault as it followed correct procedure and kept Ms X informed. We have completed our investigation. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (19 021 206) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council will not provide the complainant with information about her son. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (20 006 134) Summary: Ms X complained the Council refused her Blue Badge application without properly considering her medical conditions or completing an assessment of her walking ability. Since making the complaint, Ms X has been awarded Personal Independence Payment and now has an automatic entitlement to a Blue Badge. The complaint will not be pursued as the matter is now resolved. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (20 009 695) 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 recently awarded a badge to the complainant. 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