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. Essex County Council (19 008 474) Summary: Mr B complained about the Council's decision on how much of the fees his service (the Service) charges it will allow as disability-related expenditure (DRE) for Ms C and Ms D's financial assessments. Runwood Homes Limited (19 017 329) Summary: Mr B complains about the care his mother, Mrs C, received while resident at the Home. He says Mrs C had large number of falls, including three within the space of two days that saw her hospitalised twice. He complains the Home readmitted Mrs C from the hospital during the earlier hours when it could not meet her needs. The Ombudsman does not find fault. Herefordshire Council (19 019 453) Summary: Mr C complained about the actions of his daughter's care support provider, which was commissioned by the Council. We found that Ms C received incorrect invoices and her care support workers failed to pick up some issues with the way Ms D managed her money. However, there was no fault in the way the Council tried to support Ms D with engaging in more meaningful activities. The Council had already adjusted the invoices and has agreed to apologise for any distress Mr C and Ms D experienced. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (19 019 548) Summary: The Ombudsman finds fault with the way the Council made its decision not to backdate an increase in Mr C's personal budget. This meant Mr C had to fund the shortfall to ensure his care needs were met. There was also a delay handling Mr C's complaint. The Council has agreed to reimburse Mr C. West Sussex County Council (20 001 798) Summary: Ms X complained the Council refused to end her father's placement at a care home after he was admitted to hospital and continued to charge his care contributions. The Ombudsman finds the Council was not at fault. South Gloucestershire Council (20 006 084) Summary: We upheld some of Mr X's complaints. There was poor communication by a care provider which acted on behalf of a council. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to reflect his avoidable distress. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (20 006 604) Summary: The Council failed to provide full information to Mrs C and her mother about the possibility of 24-hour care at home before she was discharged from hospital. An apology and payment to Mrs C, along with procedural changes, is satisfactory remedy. Leeds City Council (20 006 777) Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council decided to treat his aunt as having deprived herself of £2000 of her savings. We found fault with how the Council made its decision and with the information it provided about care charging. This led to Mr X's aunt possibly having to contribute to her care costs for longer than she should have done. The Council agreed to review its decision and its procedures. It also reviewed the information it provides about care charging. This was a suitable remedy, so we completed our investigation. North Yorkshire County Council (20 007 349) Summary: The Council failed to tell Mr X about the 12-week property disregard his mother was entitled to. This is fault. The Council has already provided a suitable remedy and taken action to improve its services. Nottinghamshire County Council (20 009 334) Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision that Mrs X had deprived herself of assets in order to avoid care costs. Derbyshire County Council (20 009 706) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to consider her mother, Mrs F's best interests when it moved her to a new care home in 2021 after her capital dropped below the threshold and Mrs X could not afford the top-up fee. The Council was not at fault. It carried out relevant assessments in line with statutory guidance when it decided it was appropriate to move Mrs F to a cheaper alternative care home. West Sussex County Council (19 015 446) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision that his brother had deprived himself of capital to avoid care charges. We found the Council was not at fault in how it reached this decision. However, there were delays in the process and the Council failed to direct Mr X to its complaints procedure. The Council agreed to apologise and revise its practice guidance. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (19 016 685) Summary: Mr M complains about the way the Council carried out its calculation of how much his mother would have to pay in care home fees. It delayed disregarding the value of her home and used formulas and rules that were not reasonable. It also gave him wrong advice, delayed, and restricted his contact. We have found several faults that led to some avoidable time and trouble and distress. But the calculations on the payments are correct. So while we uphold the complaint and ask the Council to make Mr M a symbolic payment, we cannot recommend the Council reimburses Mr M in the way he seeks. London Borough of Newham (20 001 102) Summary: The Council failed to provide a personal budget to the complainant. It did not properly explain the reasons it rejected a potential care provider; and failed to properly consider reasons other suggested providers were inappropriate. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr D and his family, make a payment of £350, reconsider its decision taking into account the findings in this report, and the availability of an alternative which meets Mr D's needs. Liverpool City Council (20 009 012) Summary: there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed Ms X's financial contribution towards the cost of her care. Mr & Mrs P Sohanpaul (20 013 299) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the behaviour of a member of staff of a private care home. This is because it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the care provider. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (20 005 316) Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council failed to properly advise her of the cost of her mother's care until after she had moved into a care home. She says she was pressurised into agreeing to pay a top up fee. She also says she was given inaccurate and conflicting information about whether her mother, Mrs C, could stay at the care home long term. We find the Council was at fault in that it cannot show it gave Mrs B at least one choice of care home that was affordable within Mrs C's personal budget. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to: source a suitable alternative placement for Mrs C and consider whether it is practicable to move her; and refund Mrs B the amount she has paid in top up fees. Leeds City Council (20 009 608) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with safeguarding concerns raised by the complainant. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. Sheffield City Council (20 013 696) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr C's complaint that his wife Mrs C should return home. This is because the court has decided where Mrs C should live and only a court can overturn this decision. The Park Gate Care Home LLP (20 004 167) Summary: There is no evidence the actions of the care provider caused injustice to Mrs X. It was not part of its role to apply for fast-track funding. Helping Hands Live in National (20 004 589) Summary: Mrs X complains about the standard of live-in care the care provider gave to her mother Mrs Y and its decision to charge a cancellation fee when she ended the care agreement. There is no evidence the actions of the care provider caused injustice to Mrs X or Mrs Y so we have completed our investigation. London Borough of Enfield (20 008 889) Summary: Mr C complained the Council should have agreed to fund the cost of his mother's residential care from the day she went into the home. We found fault with the actions of the Council, as there was an unreasonable delay in carrying out Ms M's needs assessment. Furthermore, the Council should have agreed to fund her care from the date the assessment was carried out / completed. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr C, backdate Ms M's funding, review its relevant guidance and share the lessons learned with its adult social care and finance teams. London Borough of Camden (20 011 336) Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's representatives complaint about the Council's failure to assess Ms B in 2018 or respond to communication about the failure to assess and make payment. This is because the Council has accepted its failure in this case and has agreed to pay Ms B monies it owes plus interest by way of compensation. We are satisfied this remedies the injustice caused by the fault to Ms B and her representatives. Herefordshire Council (20 012 987) Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the effect of the Council's decisions in 2017 on funding social care for Mrs B which it later changed. This is because Mrs B and Mr C have already begun court action about the same matter. Coventry City Council (19 020 802) Summary: Coventry City Council delayed in its handling of a complaint about its proposed plans for adaptations under a Disabled Facilities Grant. The Council will apologise and make a payment of £200 to recognise the injustice this caused. 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