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. Owing to a technical problem we weren't able to issue our bulletins last week. This bumper edition also includes the cases you missed last week.   East Riding of Yorkshire Council (19 007 207) Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint. This is because we cannot add anything of substance to the outcome of Council's own investigation. Wiltshire Council (19 009 587) Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council charged Mr Y and the lack of explanation it provided about a significant increase in Mr Y's contribution to his care costs. He says this put Mr Y in significant debt and caused him significant undue anxiety. We found the Council at fault and it agreed to apologise and waive all the accrued debt owed by Mr Y. It also agreed to take action to ensure similar problems do not arise in future. Hales Group Ltd (19 012 144) Summary: The care provider did not act promptly to report safeguarding concerns about Mr X. It failed to treat Mr X with dignity. The care provider will now take steps to review its procedures and offer a sum in recognition of the injustice suffered. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (19 021 184) Summary: There was fault by the Council. A letter contained inaccurate information about the education provision in Mr Y's Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council will apologise for the avoidable confusion to his mother, Mrs X. Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (20 001 066) Summary: Mr P has complained about a care provider unfairly increasing his mother's residential care fees. However, the Ombudsman has not determined any fault in this respect. This is because the care provider increased its fees in compliance with the private care agreement. We are also unable to assess the fairness of the fee variation clause by reason of consumer law. London Borough of Camden (20 003 347) Summary: Mr B complained about how the Council dealt with assessment of his social care needs following a previous decision by the Ombudsman in December 2019. We find there was no fault by the Council in this matter, nor in associated matters relating to his housing conditions. Bath and North East Somerset Council (20 005 360) Summary: There was no fault in the decision to stop Mr X's direct payment. The decision was in line with relevant law and guidance and the Council's direct payment policy and was because Mr X failed to pay his assessed weekly charge. Wiltshire Council (20 005 582) Summary: Mr X complains the Council's commissioned provider failed to give him respite support on two occasions and it failed to pay the self-employed carer he engaged as replacement cover. The Council was at fault for its failure to provide Mr X with respite support. As a result, Mr X paid privately for the replacement carer. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused. Staffordshire County Council (20 005 645) Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to deal properly with the charges for his daughter's care during the COVID-19 pandemic and has failed to take a sufficiently flexible approach to meeting his daughter's needs during the pandemic, leaving them with no support at all. The Council was not at fault over the charges, but it should have been more flexible over the request to use direct payments to fund support from within the family. The Council needs to apologise, pay financial redress and reconsider its decision. London Borough of Lewisham (20 006 910) Summary: The Ombudsmen investigated and upheld an earlier complaint about charging for accommodation which should have been free under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983. We have now investigated a complaint about the Council, NHS Trust and NHS Clinical Commissioning Group failing to carry out actions agreed during the earlier investigation. We have upheld the complaint. We have also found that an estimated 57 other patients may not have up-to-date section 117 aftercare plans. The organisations accept our recommendations, so we have completed our investigation. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (20 011 906) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms B's complaint about the Council's refusal to undertake a retrospective Continuing Health Care (CHC) assessment for her mother, Mrs C. This is because the decision to accept or reject an NHS CHC assessment is not an administrative function of the Council. The decision whether to undertake a retrospective assessment is for the NHS to consider. We cannot investigate this complaint. London Borough of Camden (20 012 309) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to issue a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. In addition, the Council will accept a new application from the complainant. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (20 012 470) Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaint about the actions of the Council regarding care and support provided to her late mother, Mrs C. This is because we cannot remedy any injustice caused to Mrs C from the Council's actions and it is unlikely any further investigation could provide a different response to that Ms B has received. Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (20 012 587) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about her mother's missing jewellery. This is because the complaint is late, and it is unlikely we could achieve a worthwhile outcome for Mrs X. Also, it is reasonable for Mrs X to pursue the matter through the courts if she believes the care provider is responsible for the lost items. Shropshire Council (20 002 359) Summary: The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for not fully explaining its brokerage system for care. This caused unnecessary uncertainty to the complainants. The Ombudsman does not uphold the complaint the Council did not provide advice and information about care for the complainant in emergency circumstances. A P T Care Ltd (19 017 378) Summary: Mrs B complained APT delayed issuing invoices. APT also delayed in responding to Mrs B's concerns. We suggest APT take action to acknowledge the time and trouble Mrs B has spent pursuing the matter. Dalemead Care Home Limited (20 001 702) Summary: Mrs B complained about the fees Dalemead Care Home Limited charged after Ms C died. The charges do not appear to be in line with established guidance. This is fault. The care provider has refunded part of the fees. Sanctuary Care Limited (20 004 275) Summary: Mrs X complains Sanctuary Care has failed to deal properly with family contact arrangements at Park View Residential Care Home during COVID-19, resulting in a decline in Mrs Y's mental health and avoidable distress to herself. Sanctuary Care has not dealt with this matter properly, resulting in avoidable distress. It needs to apologise, pay financial redress and take action to prevent similar problems from arising again. Dorset Council (20 004 305) Summary: Mrs Y complains about the quality of care provided to Mr X by Wisteria Care, on behalf of the Council. The Ombudsman has found fault by Wisteria Care causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by making a payment to Mrs Y to reflect the distress, time and trouble caused by the fault, and provide evidence of the implementation by Wisteria Care of recommended service improvements. Cumbria County Council (20 005 325) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council wrongly decided her mother, Mrs Y, deliberately deprived herself of assets to avoid future care costs. There was no fault in the way the Council reached its decision. Northamptonshire County Council (20 008 741) Summary: We did not uphold the complaint. The late Mr Y's care in a nursing home was appropriate and in line with national standards. Birmingham City Council (20 012 076) Summary: We will not investigate Mr Q's complaint about the Council's failure to reissue a cheque for his late aunt's estate. This is because the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. London Borough of Hillingdon (20 001 187) Summary: Ms C complained the Council failed to install the adaptations she needed in a timely manner. As a result, Ms C said this put her at risk, which caused her distress. We found fault with the way time it took to progress Ms C's case. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy for the distress Ms C experienced. It will also review its policy, the system and the resources it has in place for ensuring necessary adaptations are delivered in a timely manner. Staffordshire County Council (20 001 759) Summary: Mrs X says the Council has failed to consider her son, Y's, disability related expenditure and property related expenditure when assessing his contribution towards his care costs. We have found some evidence of fault by the Council but consider the agreed review action provides a suitable remedy. London Borough of Hillingdon (20 003 171) Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the Council's financial assessment of Mrs X's contribution towards care charges. The Council helped Mrs X to claim an increase in Disability Living Allowance and backdated its financial assessment after the DWP decided her claim. The Council's decision to divide the cost of a large purchase over a year when calculating Disability Related Expenditure was also without fault. Mrs X would have been able to claim the whole cost if she had continued with Council carers, but decided to pay for care privately instead. London Borough of Hounslow (20 003 892) Summary: Mrs X complained about the actions the Council took to identify long-term living arrangements for her brother, Mr Z, and the way it applied to the Court of Protection for deputyship for Mr Z. She also complained about the actions of social workers who she said were biased and hid information. There was no fault in the Council's actions. Alliance Care Ltd (20 004 095) Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his late mother, Miss F who had complex care needs. He complained Alliance Care Limited (the care provider) missed two of Miss F's care calls during a day in December 2019. This meant Miss F was left in bed, without food and without her medication. The care provider has accepted fault following a Council's safeguarding enquiry into the matter. We recommend the care provider apologise and pay Mr X £100 to remedy the distress and time and trouble the matter caused him. Derbyshire County Council (20 005 213) Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council assessed her sister, Miss F, for a disabled facilities grant. The Council was not at fault. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (20 004 578) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to deal properly with the reopening of services during the first COVID-19 lockdown, resulting in it failing to meet her son's needs for longer than was necessary. There was a lack of communication with families during the lockdown, which caused Mrs X avoidable distress. Mrs Y's son should have been able to return to his Day Centre sooner than he did. The Council has agreed to apologise. Key2Support Ltd (20 004 806) Summary: Mr X complains Key2Support failed to care properly for his mother, Mrs Y, putting her at risk of harm. Mrs Y was often left waiting for Care Workers to arrive, unable to get up or take her medication. Key2Support also sent a Care Worker with COVID-19 symptoms, despite agreeing this should not happen. It needs to apologise, pay financial redress and prevent similar problems from happening again. Essex County Council (20 007 620) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's delay completing a financial assessment for Mrs Y. This meant she was charged for care which Mr X would not have agreed to if he had known the cost. The Council had accepted it was at fault and offered to reduce Mrs Y's charges by one third but Mr X rejected this. We decided the Council's offer was an acceptable remedy for the financial injustice it caused. Mr X also complained about the care provided but we did not investigate this because it was over one year since Mr X knew he could complain to us. Essex County Council (20 009 321) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint. This is because the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman is better placed to consider her complaint. Norfolk County Council (20 012 107) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Q's complaint about care home fees the Council charged for her Mother's care. This is because the complaint is late. London Borough of Brent (20 012 310) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint that in 2018 he found out the Council had given notice to terminate his mother's tenancy. This is because his complaint is late and there are not good enough reasons for us to exercise discretion to investigate it now. Staffordshire County Council (20 004 575) Summary: Mr X, who complains on behalf of his wife, says the Council is at fault in how it assessed the contribution she needs to make towards her care costs. We have found evidence of fault and made recommendations to address this and the injustice caused. The Council agreed to our recommendations and so we ended our investigation of this complaint. Palm Court Care (Dawlish) Limited (20 008 195) Summary: Ms X was not named as Mr B's contact when he was in the care home. The care provider notified the late Mr B's sister, whom he had named as his primary contact, when he died. It was not the fault of the care provider that Ms X did not learn of his death for some months. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (20 008 321) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's financial assessment which found her son, Mr Y, had to pay a contribution to his care and support. She said he could not afford the amount required. We found no fault in the Council's actions. Cambridgeshire County Council (20 011 284) Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaint about the Council breaching her confidentiality. This is because we could not add to the Council's response or make a finding of the kind Ms B wants. Complaints about breaches of data are for the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), and it would be reasonable for Ms B to ask the ICO to consider whether the evidence she has breaches confidentiality. Wakefield City Council (20 001 690) Summary: Mr D complains on behalf of his late mother, Mrs J, that the Council wrongly charged for her home care. The Council has accepted it did not advise Mr D properly prior to July 2018 and has already offered to waive the extra charges for the period October 2015 to May 2018. This is a suitable remedy. We have found no fault in the way the Council charged Mrs J from June 2018 to September 2019. Mr D should now pay the outstanding amount. 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