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. Lincolnshire County Council (20 005 479) Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council, when arranging care for her mother, Mrs C, in a care home in January 2020, failed to explain or follow its duties under the Care Act regarding the payment of the fees. East Sussex County Council (20 002 988) Summary: Mr C complained about the way the Council advised and supported him with regards to paying for his mother's care home fees. The Council has agreed to repay part of the fees and pay Mr C £250 for the distress he experienced. London Borough of Haringey (20 007 274) Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it responded to safeguarding concerns Ms X raised about Mrs Y. I have seen no evidence which supports Ms X's claims that the Council behaved inappropriately towards her during its investigations. Royal Borough of Greenwich (20 009 904) Summary: Mr X complained the Council installed an unsafe ramp in the entrance of the block where he lives. He said the Council caused delays in changing the ramp and its handling of his complaint. As a result, Mr X said he and Mrs Y experienced distress and had time and trouble to get the Council to put things right. There was not enough evidence to show the ramp was unsafe. However, the Council was at fault for its delays in properly considering Mrs Y's difficulties with the ramp and its complaints handling. It has agreed to make payment to Mr X to acknowledge the distress, uncertainty and time and trouble this caused them. Nottinghamshire County Council (20 011 817) Summary: There was no evidential basis for the Council's decision to reduce Mr Y's support hours. During this investigation the Council reconsidered its decision and reinstated the hours. There is no further remedy required. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (20 013 637) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the Council's decision to include his mother's, Mrs C's, 50% share in her property as capital for the purpose of charging for her residential care. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the Council's actions to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. The Council has apologised for the delay in responding to his complaint and we are satisfied this remedies any injustice caused to Mr B. Northumberland County Council (19 016 735) Summary: Mr B complains the Trust refused to detain his father, Mr C, in hospital. The Trust properly considered whether to detain Mr C. Mr B also complains the Council did not offer Mr C a placement in a care home. Mr C did not want to go into a care home but preferred to be at home with his wife. There is no fault. Essex County Council (19 013 095) Summary: Mrs G complained about funding decisions affecting her late aunt, Mrs B's, residential care. We have not upheld the complaints about Basildon and Brentwood Clinical Commissioning Group or about Essex County Council's actions relating to free aftercare. We have upheld some of Mrs G's complaints about the way the Council provided information about Mrs B's care arrangements. The faults caused Mrs G avoidable time, trouble and frustration. The Council accepted our recommendation of an apology and financial remedy for Mrs G. We have therefore completed our investigation. Isle of Wight Council (19 014 889) Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to ensure he can receive advocacy to help him make complaints about NHS services. We uphold the complaint finding the advocacy service used by Mr X could have done more to engage with him at the outset. Also taking account of the passage of time and confirmation Mr X requires reasonable adjustments we recommend further efforts are made to provide such advocacy services to Mr X. The Council has agreed to facilitate this with the actions agreed set out at the end of this statement. Romford Baptist Church Housing Association Limited (20 002 932) Summary: the complainant complained the Care Provider caused her late mother an injustice by failing to provide suitable care for her including reporting an injury and other lapses in care. The Care Provider said it investigated complaints and as a result undertook staff training and improvements. The Care Provider says it designed the service based on information presented by the complainant. On the information we have gathered we find the Care Provider caused an injustice for which it apologises and will pay £150. Four Seasons Homes No.4 Limited (20 005 651) Summary: Mrs D complains about the Care Provider's actions during the COVID-19 lockdown while her father was resident at Windsor House Care Home. We have found that some of the Care Provider's actions caused injustice to Mrs D. It has agreed to apologise. London Borough of Redbridge (20 006 167) Summary: Ms Y complained on behalf of Mr X that the Council assessed Mr X's disability related expenditure (DRE) incorrectly. She also complained the Council failed to acknowledge or adequately address her complaint within reasonable timescales. Ms Y said this matter caused Mr X distress and financial loss. The Council was at fault when it failed to review whether costs Mr X incurred during a leisure trip in 2018 could be considered DRE. The Council was also at fault when it failed to respond to Mr X's complaint within a reasonable timescale, causing Ms Y to spend time chasing the Council for a response. The Council has agreed to review Mr X's costs, make a payment of £100 to Mr X and remind its staff of the importance of dealing with complaints within a reasonable timescale. London Borough of Bexley (20 007 889) Summary: We have found fault in the Council's supervision of building works on Ms B's property and there was a delay in completing the works. This meant Ms B and Ms E were living in accommodation that did not fully meet Ms E's needs for a long time. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms B and Ms E and a financial remedy. Cornwall Council (20 008 432) Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council decided her neighbour had deprived herself of assets. She said this meant her neighbour unnecessarily paid for her care fees. We have discontinued this complaint as we have insufficient information to proceed. Kent County Council (19 021 062) Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her father, Mr Y, about the Council's safeguarding enquiry into Mr Y's care at Madeira Lodge Care Home. The Ombudsman found no evidence of fault with the Council's enquiry, or the outcome reached. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (20 004 873) Summary: Ms B complained on her own behalf and on behalf of her late father about the standard of her father's care while he lived in extra care housing, issues that arose about her father's funeral plan and burial plot and the Council's failure to deal with her complaints about these matters. She said her father was not cared for properly and his wishes for burial could not be met. She said she was caused stress and upset. There was fault by the Council that caused injustice to Ms B. The Council will apologise and make a payment to her. North Yorkshire County Council (20 005 510) Summary: The Council was at fault for billing Mr P care following a period of intermediate care which is free of cost up to a period of six weeks. This is because the Council delayed in conducting a financial assessment to determine what relevant costs Mr P would need to contribute for the additional care beyond the intermediate care. Further, the Council failed to specify what costs, if any, would be involved prior to the financial assessment. This caused Mr P to incur unexpected charges and so the Council has agreed to waive these. Bristol City Council (20 006 019) Summary: Mr C complains about delay and other matters in connection with a request the Council provide adaptations to his home. We uphold the complaint finding significant delay in the Council agreeing to and providing the adaptations Mr C needs. This has caused injustice to Mr C resulting from a loss of provision, distress and some unnecessary frustration, time and trouble. The Council accepts these findings and at the end of this statement we set out the action it has agreed to remedy that injustice and provide wider improvements to its home adaptations service. Kent County Council (20 009 380) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs A's complaint about the quality of care a Nursing Home provided to her late mother. This is because the Council was not responsible for arranging her care therefore we do not have jurisdiction to consider her complaint. London Borough of Bexley (19 010 198) Summary: Mr C complained the London Borough of Bexley's charging policy did not accurately reflect the administrative costs incurred in providing his mother's (Mrs B's) care, and the Council has overcharged her. Councils can charge those people who pay the full cost of their care for the administration costs of managing that care. Councils must not charge more than it costs them for those administrative tasks. The Council originally dismissed Mr C's complaint but after further investigation found its policy was unfair. It has revised its policy which it has not yet implemented. It says the new policy is fair and the charge will not exceed the Council's costs in providing administrative services. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (20 013 125) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged inadequate support by the Council for the complainant's care needs, and the lack of an assessment of those care needs. This is because we do not have evidence to support the allegation of injustice, and therefore cannot achieve a worthwhile outcome. Cumbria County Council (20 013 621) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that poor advice by the Council caused the complainant to receive Carers Allowance she was not entitled to. This is because the complainant appealed to the tribunal. We will not investigate the complaint about a reduction in a direct payment in 2014 because it is a late complaint. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (20 006 683) Summary: Miss X complains about the Council's handling of her care and support needs. She complains the Council failed to assess her needs, did not complete assessments properly, failed to meet her needs, and failed to tell her about advocacy. We find fault with the Council failing to meet Miss X's eligible needs, and for not properly considering her comments on the care assessment and OT assessment. We have made recommendations. 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