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. Buckinghamshire County Council (18 018 286) Summary: We found fault with the support a Trust provided to a man with complex care needs and his parents. We also found fault by a Council in terms of the handling of the Mental Health Act Assessment process by an Approved Mental Health Practitioner acting on its behalf. The Council and Trust will apologise to the complainants and pay a financial sum in recognition of the distress caused to them by this fault. They will also take action to prevent similar problems occurring in future. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (20 004 885) Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to notify him and his brother Mr Y of their brother's death. The Council is not at fault. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (20 005 413) Summary: Ms X complained about the level of care provided to her mother, Mrs Y, on behalf of the Council, in the weeks leading to her mother's death. The care home sought medical advice appropriately. However, it was at fault for the loss of some of Mrs Y's records. Twinglobe Care Limited (20 010 786) Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaint about the actions of her late mother's, Mrs C's, care provider. This is because further investigation by the Ombudsman could not add to the care provider's response or make a different finding of the kind Ms B wants. It would be reasonable for Ms B to ask the court to consider whether the care provider is liable for Mrs C's missing jewellery. London Borough of Hillingdon (20 008 686) Summary: There was no fault in the social worker informing Mr X that his mother would be required to contribute towards her care. Mr X says this caused the family distress. Given that Mr X's mother had a property worth more than the upper capital limit a light touch financial assessment was reasonable, until Mr X's sister moved into the property and the family disputed the decision. Essex County Council (20 011 392) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs P's complaint about a delayed carer's assessment because it is late. Also, Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust has not had the opportunity to consider her complaint about a respite placement. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (20 005 471) Summary: Mrs X complained about the care Mrs Y received and how the Council carried out a safeguarding investigation. She says this caused harm to Mrs Y and caused her stress and anxiety. The Council was at fault for failing to ensure the Care Provider made proper records of Mrs Y's personal care and responded appropriately to Mrs Y's falls. This caused Mrs X distress and uncertainty. The Council will apologise and reminds staff of the correct procedures. Jorada Limited (20 006 454) Summary: Mrs X complains about the actions of her care provider. She says the carers did not wear correct personal protective equipment, care was rushed and inadequate, care was cancelled without discussion, and that a carer falsified her timesheet. She also complains the care provider's communication with her son was poor. We find some fault with the care provider's actions. We have made recommendations. London Borough of Merton (20 011 905) Summary: We shall not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled concerns about a care home. Any complaint about the Council's safeguarding responsibilities is late and it is unlikely we could achieve anything meaningful on other parts of the complaint. Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (20 011 932) Summary: We shall not pursue this complaint about what happened during Mr Y's stay in two of Barchester Healthcare's (the Care Provider's) care homes. This is because the complaint is late. South Gloucestershire Council (20 013 070) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a request to identify someone who made an allegation. We cannot achieve the outcome Mrs C wants. Cambridgeshire County Council (20 005 396) Summary: Mrs X complains on behalf of her daughter, Miss Y about the Council's decision not to renew Miss Y's Blue Badge. Mrs X says she spent a lot of time appealing the decision and the Council's actions caused her avoidable distress and inconvenience. We have found fault by the Council in this matter and the Council has agreed a remedy to address the injustice caused. Kent County Council (20 008 020) Summary: Mr X complained the Council charged him for a period of reablement care it should not have charged him for after he was discharged from hospital. The Council accepted it did not make it clear to Mr X which care he would need to pay for and agreed to refund the care charges he disputed. We were satisfied this remedied the injustice to Mr X so we completed our investigation. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (20 003 378) Summary: Miss X complains that the Council failed to accept responsibility for her aunt and cousin and consequently failed to meet their housing and care support needs. The Council has acknowledged its actions caused unnecessary delays and upset to Miss X and her family. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and service improvements. Northamptonshire County Council (20 005 888) Summary: Mrs D complained the Council delayed providing her with a copy of her late husband's care and support plan. She also complained the Council failed to provide her with adequate information on direct payments, unreasonably sought repayment of the remaining direct payments funds and failed to facilitate care to enable her late husband to be discharged from hospital. We find the Council delayed providing Mrs D with a copy of her late husband's care and support plan. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Warrington Council (20 007 071) Summary: Mr B says Community Integrated Care, providing adult social care support to his daughters on behalf of the Council, provided a poor service. Mr B says the Care Provider caused injury to one of his daughters and damage to his property. It has been very upsetting for Mr B and his wife. The Council has started a safeguarding investigation. To allow the Council the opportunity to complete this, and fully consider all issues and take any necessary action, I have discontinued my investigation. If Mr B is not happy with the result of the Council's investigation, he can make a new complaint to the Ombudsman. Lincolnshire County Council (20 011 469) Summary: I will not investigate this complaint about the circumstances in which a Care Provider ceased care for the complainant's father. This is because we cannot achieve a worthwhile outcome for the complainant. Warrington Council (20 011 876) Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council handled a refund to his mother's account for care costs. Mr X also complained the Council would not accept a formal complaint. We will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (20 011 583) Summary: On the evidence currently available, we will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the domiciliary care his mother, Ms Y, received. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would add to the previous investigations and there is insufficient evidence of injustice. Norfolk County Council (19 020 145) Summary: The Council reduced Mrs X's package of care when it assessed that her needs were being met by other means. It reinstated care after Mrs X showed her needs had increased again. However, there was a failure to consider Mrs X's circumstances which led to a period when her care was less than satisfactory. The Council agrees to apologise and offer a payment in recognition of the distress caused. B & M Care/Colleycare Ltd (19 015 919) Summary: Mr X complained that a care provider failed to properly assess his mother's needs and should not have accepted her as a resident. He complained about aspects of the care provided. We found no fault in the care provider's decision to accept her as a resident or its decision that it could meet Mrs X's needs. We found there was a failure to carry out a risk assessment, but this caused no significant injustice. 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