Thursday, July 1, 2021

New adult social care complaint decisions

adult social care

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.


Summary: Mr B complained about what happened when his father, Mr C, was discharged from hospital to a nursing home. We found no fault in the way the Council and Trust arranged Mr C's discharge from hospital and communicated with his family. We note that the CCG has appropriately offered to review Mr C's eligibility for NHS continuing healthcare.

Summary: The Council has accepted it took too long to investigate safeguarding concerns about Mr B's late mother, and failed to communicate with Mr B sufficiently. The Council has also acknowledged it took too long to complete essential adaptations to the family home. This meant that Mrs Y was left without proper access to washing facilities and could not use the stairs. It caused Mr B distress, uncertainty and frustration. The Council has raised concerns at a senior level and completed a transformation programme of its adaptations service. It will also review its safeguarding practices. The Council should also apologise to Mr B for its shortcomings and pay him £500 in respect of the prolonged distress, uncertainty, inconvenience, and frustration its delays caused him.

Summary: Ms C complained about an occupational therapy assessment done in September 2019 and the subsequent delays in carrying out minor adaptations to her kitchen to enable her to use it independently. We found fault with the Council. The Council has agreed to finalise the proposals within one month and complete the work within three months. It has also agreed to carry out a reassessment of Ms C's needs and pay her £750.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr B's complaint about the actions of the Council. This is because the Council has started court action to recover the debt it says Mr B owes. We cannot investigate once court action has commenced.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Care Provider commissioned by the Council, St Georges Park Care Home, unnecessarily prevented her from visiting her mother Mrs Y. Mrs X also complained the Care Provider did not properly care for Mrs Y and falsely accused her of abusing her mother. Mrs X says the Care Provider's actions caused her distress. There was fault when the Council failed to respond to Mrs X's complaint within the required timescales. This caused Mrs X inconvenience. The Council has made an offer of £250 to address its handling of Mrs X's complaint and has agreed to my recommendation to address the service failure. This is a satisfactory remedy to address the injustice Mrs X suffered. There was no fault in the Care Provider's actions.

Summary: Mr B complained that the Council allowed his father to make his own decision about his living and care arrangements despite the fact he was suffering from dementia. He says it failed to provide adequate information about the cost of the care package and failed to consult him. It also delayed in providing information. We found the Council was at fault in that it failed to provide an estimate of costs at the outset and delayed in issuing invoices causing uncertainty. In recognition of this the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr B.

Summary: Mrs C complained the Council was wrong to conclude her (late) father-in-law deprived himself of assets to avoid paying for care in the future, when he decided to gift money to his family in 2018. We found there was no fault in the process through which the Council made its decision.

Summary: Ms X complains about the care company's failure to provide answers about the care it provided to her late sister. There was service failure which caused Ms X an injustice. I recommend Foremost Care UK reviews its complaints procedures; apologises to Ms X and offers her a time and trouble payment.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's decision not to fund her husband's temporary home care package. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would add to the response already provided by the Council's investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council made a series of best interest decisions that his wife should stay in residential care. We cannot investigate the complaint because the Council has made an application to the Court of Protection to consider the same matters.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaint about the actions of her care provider. This is because further investigation could not add to the care provider's response. The care provider has apologised for the disruption to Ms B's invoices for care charges and we are satisfied this remedies the injustice caused to Ms B.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care the complainant received in a care home in 2013. This is because it is a late complaint.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with Mrs Y's care. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council and one of its commissioned care providers in the monitoring, and standard, of care provided to Mrs Y. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising, making a payment to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the faults and providing evidence of service improvement.

Summary: Mrs D complained about the unsatisfactory standard of domiciliary care provided to her mother, Mrs E, by Austen Allen Healthcare Ltd. Mrs D also complained that care calls were inconsistent and too short. We find that Mrs E and Mrs D suffered an injustice. To remedy this, the care provider has agreed to apologise to Mrs E and Mrs D, and pay Mrs E and Mrs D a financial remedy.

Summary: Ms B complains that her mother, Mrs C, received inadequate care which resulted in her falling and suffering significant injuries. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that the care Mrs C received caused her to fall. However, the carer was at fault in moving her after the fall instead of seeking medical advice. In recognition of the uncertainty about whether this may have contributed to her injuries, the care provider has agreed to make a payment to Mrs C.

Summary: Mr C complains the Council unlawfully included his father's park home in its financial assessment and decided he had to pay a contribution towards his care costs. As a result, Mr C says he has experienced distress, financial loss and had time and trouble to get the Council to comply with the law. There was no fault in how the Council handled its financial assessment and how it reached its decision. And so, we cannot criticise the merits of its decision.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the care Mrs X's mother, Mrs Y, received at Hadrian House. They said the Care Provider did not do enough to stop Mrs Y's injuries and left her in bed for six weeks unnecessarily. They felt this caused Mrs Y's health and wellbeing to worsen and ultimately led to her death. We found the Care Provider was not at fault.

Summary: We stopped investigating a complaint about a council's response to allegations of abuse because relevant evidence is not available.

Summary: Miss B complained the Council had not properly considered whether her property needed adaptations to meet her needs. As a result she does not have suitable bathing facilities. There was no fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's late complaint about the actions of her previous Care Provider. This is because Mrs B could have come to us sooner if she was concerned about the contractual agreement. There is no good reason for us to exercise discretion and investigate this late complaint now.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaint about the actions of the Council regarding communication with her about her late mother's, Mrs C's, care needs and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The arrangements for Mrs C were subject to orders from the Court of Protection and it was for the Court to consider any complaint that the orders were breached. Mrs C's death in 2020 does not mean the Ombudsman can now consider what was properly for the Court. There is otherwise not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Summary: Ms C complained about the way the Council responded to concerns she raised about her care, and the lack of support she received in finding a Personal Assistant. We have found no fault in the way the Council acted.

Summary: Ms B says the Council failed to take action to meet her adult social care needs and keep her safe at home, which has resulted in numerous falls. The Council took appropriate action to assess Ms B's needs and offered solutions. Further assessment was needed for stair mobility, but the Council did not receive a response from Ms B and closed its case. The Council re-opened the case when contacted by Ms B. I find no fault in the Council's actions.

Summary: Ms Y complains about the lack of action taken by Chetwynd House Care Home Limited after her late father, Mr W, suffered significant bruising while in their care. We find the home's record keeping fell below the required standard which in turn created uncertainty about Mr W's injuries and the pain he experienced. The home also failed to notify the family in a timely way of Mr W's injuries. The home will apologise and pay £300 in recognition of the avoidable distress caused and implement updated staff guidance or training.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the standard of care for the complainant's mother in a Care Home, A, and during her removal to a second Care Home, B. This is because the complaint is made late. We cannot investigate matters known to the complainant more than 12 months previously unless there are good reasons to exercise the Ombudsman's discretion. Additionally there is no fault by the Council in relation to a complaint about charging for Care Home B.

Summary: When arranging adult social care for a full cost payer, the Council failed to tell the person of the weekly administrative charge so they could make an informed decision on whether to incur this or arrange their own care. The care the Council arranged was poor, with the Care Provider regularly arriving late and the family having already met the needs of the person using the services. The family received little benefit from the care package they were paying in full for, and found it distressing to do the work of the care workers and never know when the care workers would arrive. The Council will waive the care charges and remind staff to give adequate information about paying for care.

Summary: Ms C does not consider the Council adequately protected her mother, Mrs Z, which she says resulted in her not receiving the care she needed before she died. While there were a few instances when the care provided was not as it should have been, overall the care commissioned by the Council was adequate and in line with the court of protection approved care plans. The Council took safeguarding action when necessary. There is no fault in the actions of the Council, or the Care Provider acting on behalf of the Council which have caused unremedied injustice.


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 GovDelivery logo

No comments:

Post a Comment