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. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (18 019 798) Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council failed to provide support for her adult son, Mr S, in 2018, and that the Council failed on its promises of work experience and a job for Mr S. Mrs X says the Council's failings have caused her son to become depressed and housebound. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault. Peterborough City Council (19 009 369) Summary: Mr D complains, on behalf of his mother Ms G, that the Care Provider did not properly provide care for Ms G, on behalf of the Council. The Council was at fault because the Care Provider did not meet some of Ms G's needs and did not follow its complaints process. Ms G has passed away and Mr D suffered distress. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr D and pay him £200. London Borough of Southwark (20 001 348) Summary: The Ombudsmen have not found fault by a Council or an NHS Trust about their assessment or decision to discontinue parts of a reablement care package because the individual was unable to participate due to her dementia at that time. We have also not found fault with either organisation's complaint handling. London Borough of Brent (20 007 955) Summary: Mr X complained the Council refused to reimburse him when he paid privately to have a stairlift installed and delayed in carrying out works to his bathroom under the Disabled Facilities Grant scheme. There was no fault in the Council's actions. Leicestershire County Council (20 013 588) Summary: Mr X complained the Council conspired against him to investigate a malicious safeguarding referral involving his friend, Mr Y. Mr X also complained the Council will not destroy any records of the enquiry. We will not investigate this complaint as it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council's actions. Surrey County Council (20 013 948) Summary: We will not investigate Miss B's complaint that a council officer persuaded her to employ carers who were inappropriate and who broke her personal belongings. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. London Borough of Newham (20 007 201) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's delay in completing an adaptation for his mother, Mrs Y. This limited Mrs Y's ability to independently maintain her personal care whilst waiting for an over bath shower to be installed. The Council accepts it delayed installing the shower. This delay was compounded by the national lockdown as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. It will apologise, and make a payment to Mrs Y to remedy the injustice caused. London Borough of Harrow (20 013 786) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to renew the complainant's disabled travel pass. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Birmingham City Council (20 004 111) Summary: Mr B complained, on behalf of his parents Mr and Mrs C, the Council delayed completing their carers assessments. Mr B said this delayed his parents receiving a carer's grant and his brothers' care packages being increased by 10 hours each. We found fault with the Council for the delay in completing Mr and Mrs C's carers assessment. The Council will make a financial payment to remedy the injustice caused by the delay and undertake service improvements. Darlington Borough Council (20 004 697) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's handling of her husband, Mr Y's direct payments between 2015 and 2018. This resulted in the Council issuing them an invoice for £6879 for unaccounted and unauthorised spending of the direct payments. The Council was at fault for failing to monitor, audit and provide support to Mrs X and Mr Y on their spending of the direct payments. It was also at fault for failing to keep adequate records. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and Mr Y for the distress and uncertainty this caused and reduce the outstanding debt owed. London Borough of Havering (20 005 015) Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his renewal of a Taxicard. The Council accepted some fault for which it apologised and reconsidered his application. We agreed with this outcome but recommended a time and trouble payment should be made to remedy the injustice to Mr X. The Council agreed to this recommendation. North Yorkshire County Council (20 006 309) Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's decision her mother, Mrs Y intentionally deprived herself of assets to avoid paying her care fees. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. Norfolk County Council (20 008 270) Summary: Mrs E complained the Council failed to properly investigate and take appropriate action in response to her safeguarding concerns about her mother's respite care. We ended our investigation as the Council offered a new safeguarding investigation which we considered provided a suitable remedy. Wellbeing Homecare Services Limited (20 013 456) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about money being taken from his mother's, Mrs C's, bank account for care fees. This is because Mr B can ask the Council to consider his concerns under its responsibility as lead Safeguarding Authority. Nottinghamshire County Council (20 013 542) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about a bill for a care service. This is because the complaint is late and there is insufficient information for us to reach a safe enough conclusion now on whether the Council is at fault by pursuing payment of the charges in question. Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (20 013 606) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council incorrectly charged her husband's care account. Mrs X also complained about the way the Council handled her husband's financial assessment. Mrs X stated this caused her significant distress and physical ill health. We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to accept it now. Warwickshire County Council (19 018 794) Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council has calculated Ms X's financial assessment. The Council apologised for an initial error in its communications, but the error had no impact on the assessment itself. Lancashire County Council (20 002 918) Summary: Miss C complained about the quality of care her late father received at the care home in which he was a resident. She also complained the Council completed a safeguarding enquiry which was a waste of time. We find there was some fault in the care home's consideration of what preventive measures to implement to reduce Mr D's risk of falls. The care home also failed to follow its own observation policy. The Council's safeguarding enquiry addressed the concerns about the preventive measures and recommended service improvements. However, it wrongly concluded the care home followed its observation policy. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Care UK Community Partnerships Limited (20 007 872) Summary: There is evidence of fault by the Care Provider in this complaint. Ms X's mother's jewellery was lost because of the actions of a care worker. There were inconsistencies in the Care Provider's response to Ms X's complaint. It also failed to offer an adequate remedy for the injustice caused. WCN Care Limited (20 013 240) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint about the actions of her friends, Mrs C's, care provider. This is because we cannot provide a remedy to Mrs C for any fault an investigation might uncover now she is deceased. We cannot investigate the NHS or comment on the actions of healthcare providers. Alliance Care (Dales Homes) Limited (20 013 259) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about his late parents. Mr and Mrs C's, care provider. This is because we could not add to the care provider's response or make a finding of the kind Mr B wants. Birmingham City Council (19 016 498) Summary: The Council delayed carrying out an assessment of Mrs Y's needs after her savings had reduced to the level where she was eligible for help with the cost of her care home fees. The Council also delayed offering alternative affordable care home placements and delayed contacting Mrs Y's care home to see if it would enter a contract with the Council and reduce its fees. The Council has since paid the care home fees. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs Y's son, who was pursuing the complaint on her behalf, and to take action to prevent similar failings in future. Wolverhampton City Council (20 001 484) Summary: There is evidence of fault by the Council in the way it dealt with a safeguarding investigation about the quality of domiciliary care provided to Mr Y. The Council is also at fault for wrongly informing Mr Y's son to complain directly to the Care Provider, as a commissioner of the care, it the Council that was responsible for dealing with complaints about the care. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (20 004 610) Summary: The Council failed to deal with Mr Y's financial assessment in a timely manner. It has apologised and agreed to waive all backdated charges. Kent County Council (20 013 633) 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. Nazareth Care Charitable Trust (20 002 290) Summary: We upheld a complaint about fees. The Care Provider failed to give key information in writing about fees, failed to respond to correspondence fully or at all and did not treat funded nursing care payments in line with its contract. The Care Provider will apologise, adjust Mrs Y's charges, make Mr X a payment to reflect his avoidable time and trouble and review its contract and procedures as described in this statement. Durham County Council (19 019 435) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint. We most likely would not find fault with how Durham County Council responded to her safeguarding concerns. Also, we are unlikely to find fault with how her integrated care team supported her in response to those concerns. 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