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. West Sussex County Council (19 018 217) Summary: Mrs C complained about the way in which the Council carried out her financial assessment, as well the appeal she subsequently made. We found fault with the way the Council carried out Mrs C's financial assessment and appeal. The Council has agreed to apologise for this, discuss the expenses has with regards to her vehicle and review the DRE appeal process. Norfolk County Council (19 019 318) Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate the matter before the Court of Protection. There is no evidence of fault in the Council's decision not to proceed with a further Best Interests meeting or go to mediation. Warrington Council (20 000 864) Summary: We find the Council was at fault in its handling of residential care charges and respite care for Mr X's adult son. The Council has agreed to our recommendations for a remedy. West Sussex County Council (20 004 528) Summary: Miss D complains the Council did not provide support whilst her sister was living with her rather than in a care home during the COVID-19 pandemic. We have found fault in complaint handling which caused time and trouble to Miss D. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss D. Isle of Wight Council (20 006 151) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint about the way she and her son, Mr D, have been treated by the Council. This is because some of Mrs B's complaints have been previously considered and decided by the Ombudsman and he cannot investigate the same matters again. Further investigation into Mrs B's complaints could not add to the Council's response or provide Mrs B with the outcome she wants. There is no unremedied injustice warranting an Ombudsman investigation. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (20 010 888) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charging for respite care. This is because the complainant is not a Suitable Representative for her mother-in-law. Additionally the complaint is made late so we would not investigate it if it was brought by a Suitable Representative. London Borough of Hillingdon (20 013 191) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council will not give the complainant a female social worker. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. H C One Ltd (20 013 352) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the time taken to respond to his request for information. This because the Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider his complaint. London Borough of Lambeth (20 013 406) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to award a Blue Badge. This is because the Council has now awarded a badge to the complainant. London Borough of Newham (19 007 669) Summary: The Ombudsmen find fault in the way a Care Home monitored and recorded the condition of a resident's foot. However, the Care Home has already accepted this failing and taken suitable action to improve its practice. The Ombudsmen has not found fault in the Care Home's actions during a week in late October 2018 as there no clear indications it should have escalated the resident's care during that time. Nottinghamshire County Council (20 005 302) Summary: Mr B complained the Council did not explain or provide sufficient information about his mother's contribution towards her care home fees. We find fault with the Council as it did not provide clear information to Mr B for him to know he had to pay a care contribution. Mr B has suffered an injustice of uncertainty and has been put to the time and trouble of complaining. The Council agrees to apologise and pay Mr B the sum of £350 for uncertainty and putting him to the time and trouble of complaining. Nottinghamshire County Council (20 006 857) Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed dealing with her sister Miss Y's request to move care homes. The Council was at fault. It failed to properly consider Miss Y's preferences and failed to provide any suitable alternative options to meet Miss Y's needs. It failed to acknowledge Ms X was not willing to support her sister long term. This caused Ms X and Miss Y uncertainty and frustration and placed Ms X under significant strain as she had to care for her sister far longer than she expected to. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and Miss Y and make a payment to recognise the impact the faults had on them. It has also agreed to progress Miss Y's move to a care home as soon as possible. Liverpool City Council (20 012 824) Summary: Mr X complained the Council would not investigate a complaint he made about money and property relating to his late relative. He also complained about the Council's failure to respond to a request for information relating to his relative's death. We will not investigate these complaints. For the first complaint it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council's actions. For the second complaint there is not enough injustice to justify investigation. London Borough of Camden (20 012 906) Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's refusal to fit a bidet toilet for her mother. We cannot investigate the complaint because it is a late complaint and there are no good reasons to investigate it now. Quantum Care Limited (20 013 209) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the care her husband received. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to add anything to the response Mrs X has already received or achieve a different remedy. Northamptonshire County Council (20 013 249) Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's response to an NHS Foundation Trust (NHFT) referral made to the Council following a complaint Mr X had made about the NHFT. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault and because an investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome. London Borough of Wandsworth (20 004 524) Summary: Mr C complains the Council failed to carry out a reassessment of his mother's care needs when her health declined to the point she needed residential care. We uphold the complaint, finding the Council failed to make appropriate enquiries when it learnt Mr C's mother had moved out of its area. The Council accepts this finding and has agreed action, set out at the end of this statement, to remedy the injustice which resulted from this fault. Surrey County Council (20 008 623) 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 Council or care provider is responsible for the lost item. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (20 001 577) Summary: Miss B complained on behalf of her disabled brother Mr C about how the Council dealt with his need for a change of residential placement, and matters associated with that. We find there was fault by the Council resulting in significant injustice, including a lengthy period in an unsuitable placement, for which a remedy has been agreed. Care 1st Limited (20 002 953) Summary: Mr X has complained about the standard of home care provided to his father (Mr K) by Care 1st Limited. There was fault in that Care 1st did not deliver part of Mr X's care package. There was also fault with respect to inappropriate conduct which fell short of the requirement to treat service users with dignity and respect. These matters caused Mr K and an injustice, and so the Ombudsman has decided to recommend a remedy. Kent County Council (20 004 752) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision to de-register him as a Shared Lives host. Mr X said the panel process which led to his de-registration was unfair and flawed. The Council was at fault. It failed to administer the panel and appeal process in line with relevant policy and the Ombudsman's Principles of Good Administrative Practice. It caused Mr X uncertainty about whether the outcome could have been different. The Council agreed to review and ask a fresh panel to consider Mr X's case. London Borough of Lambeth (20 007 295) Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaint about the Council's assessment of her father's, Mr C's, finances. This is because the Council has acknowledged the failures in this case. It has apologised to Ms B and written off Mr C's debt. We are satisfied this remedies any injustice caused to Ms B and Mr C. Comfort Call Limited (20 007 908) Summary: Mr D complained the Care Provider failed to provide some of the care it agreed to provide to Mr X, and it charged him incorrectly for the care provided. He also said it failed to correct its errors when he brought it to its attention. The Provider agreed it was at fault and apologised to Mr D. However, this was not enough to remedy the injustice caused. And so, the Provider also agreed to apologise to Mr D and make a payment to acknowledge the distress and time and trouble Mr D experienced. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (20 012 555) Summary: We do not propose to investigate this complaint about the Council's allocation and monitoring of care providers for the complainant's mother. This is because investigation by the LGSCO would not add anything to the Council's response or provide an additional outcome. North Yorkshire County Council (20 002 357) Summary: Mr C complained the Council took an unreasonable amount of time to try and come to a decision whether it would be in his mother's best interests to move back to her own home, rather than stay in her nursing home permanently. We have upheld Mr C's complaint. As a result, the Council has agreed to provide an apology to Mr C and pay him a financial remedy for the distress he experienced. It will also share the lessons learned with its staff. Surrey County Council (20 002 667) Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the way the Council dealt with their direct payments and care assessments, causing distrust and distress. The Ombudsman has found fault in the Council's communication and handling of this case. The Council has already taken some remedial action to resolve the complaint issues and will make a financial payment for the injustice caused to Mr and Mrs X. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (20 004 128) Summary: The Council was not at fault for declining to fund Mrs Y's care fees. The Council followed correct procedure and considered relevant evidence when reaching the decision that the transfer of Mrs Y's house was a deprivation of assets. We have not upheld Mr X's complaint. Hertfordshire County Council (20 007 006) Summary: Mr C complained the Council failed to carry out a proper and thorough safeguarding investigation into five safeguarding concerns he raised during October and November 2020. We found the Council failed to respond to two issues Mr C raised. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr C for any distress this caused him. Dorset Council (20 008 170) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council's care provider, Fairlawn (a care home run by Care South), failed to keep her updated about her mother's condition during the first lockdown or provide proper contact with her when she was at the end of her life. There have been problems for which Care South has apologised, which is an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused. However, it was not at fault over restricting Mrs X to a single end-of-life visit. Mrs X has also raised concerns about the failure to provide copies of her mother's care records after she died. Broxtowe Borough Council (21 000 070) Summary: Mrs X complains about contact from the Council about the repayment of a housing repair loan relating to a property she inherited. We will not investigate as the complaint is made late to us and there are not good reasons to investigate now. 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