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 (20 001 858) Summary: There is no evidence the Council failed to undertake appropriate safeguarding investigations. There was a lack of communication with Mrs A about the outcome of some safeguarding concerns for which the Council has apologised. London Borough of Enfield (20 007 726) Summary: Mr X complained the Council has incorrectly charged his mother, Mrs M, for the full amount of her residential care. The Council was at fault when it delayed sending Mr X the financial assessment forms to complete and delayed in transferring Mrs M's Care Home fees from the NHS to itself once her Continuing Health Care award ceased. It has already apologised to Mr X, which is sufficient to remedy any injustice he experienced, and taken appropriate steps to prevent the fault occurring again. There was no fault in the way the Council decided to class Mrs M as a self-funder and seek to recover her outstanding Care Home fees from Mr X, who has power of attorney for her. Southend-on-Sea Borough Council (20 008 399) Summary: Mr and Mrs W complain about the Council's actions regarding the care planning and hospital discharge of their late mother, Mrs Y. They also complain about the conduct and professionalism of a social worker. We cannot determine what the social worker said during the meeting in question, but the Council has already provided an apology from the social worker. This is a suitable remedy. There is no evidence the Council persuaded Mr and Mrs W to provide informal care to Mrs Y after her discharge. However, there is some fault in the Council's handling of the complaint which it will apologise for and pay £100 to remedy the time and trouble caused. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (20 008 484) Summary: Mr X and Mrs S complained their mother, Mrs M's, Care Home failed to provide her with adequate care. They also complain about the actions of the Council in finding her a new care home and how it carried out her Continuing Health Care (CHC) checklist assessments. The Council was at fault when it failed to invite a family member to two of Mrs M's CHC checklist assessments. However, this did not cause Mrs M an injustice. The Council has agreed to remind staff of the importance of considering whether to invite family members to CHC checklist assessments. There was no fault in the care provided by the Care Home to Mrs M or the actions of the Council in finding Mrs M a new care home. We Do Recover CIC (20 009 625) Summary: Ms B complains about the fees and safety of services at a drug and alcohol detox and rehabilitation centre. The Care Provider has given Ms B a part refund and advised her of actions it will take to make its service safer. The Care Quality Commission is investigating the provider's registration. We have discontinued investigation on the basis we would not achieve much by investigation, and the CQC is best placed to pursue the wider safety concerns. Lancashire County Council (20 013 991) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about a capacity assessment the Council completed for her father, Mr Y, in 2017; his care home placements between 2017-2018 and the outstanding care charges. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late. I see no good grounds to consider this very late complaint now. Springdene Nursing and Care Homes Limited (21 000 371) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the care his mother received in her care home during the two months she resided there in 2019. This is because further investigation could not add to the care provider's responses or make a different finding of the kind Mr B wants. Milton Keynes Council (20 004 047) Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to meet his son's needs following the end of the first COVID-19 lockdown in England. The Council could not meet the son's needs in the way it did before the lockdown because of COVID-19, not because of fault by the Council. There was also no fault by the Council over its decision to stop taking cash payments for transport. Norfolk County Council (20 014 484) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint that the Council has refused to provide him with access to his late mother's, Ms C's care records. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr B to ask the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) to decide whether he should have access to the information he wants. West Sussex County Council (21 001 303) Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's late complaint about the Council's failure to provide her with care and support between 2016 and 2018. This is because Ms B could have come to us during this time if she was concerned about the lack of care provision. There is no good reason to disapply the law and investigate this late complaint now. Durham County Council (20 006 499) Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision that Mrs X had deliberately deprived herself of assets in order to avoid care charges. West Sussex County Council (20 012 883) Summary: Mr X complained the Council has incorrectly calculated the final redemption figure for his late mother's care contribution. Mr X also complained that he received incorrect calculations of charges regularly from the care home during his mother's time there. Mr X says the Council did not provide charges in a clear and plain manner and disputes the final balance. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the final balance or clarity of the invoices. Hampshire County Council (19 016 002) Summary: We have found fault with the way the Council carried out a financial assessment. The Council did not properly consider Mrs C's individual circumstances in deciding whether she was eligible for funding by the Council. Mrs C has suffered an injustice as there is uncertainty whether the Council considered all the relevant factors when it made its decision. The Council has agreed to review the financial assessment. London Borough of Sutton (20 008 335) Summary: We upheld Mrs D's complaint about a failure to provide Mr E with care and support through his direct payment between July and November 2020. There was also fault in the Council's complaint handling. The fault caused Mrs D avoidable time and trouble and a financial loss to another family member who transported Mr E to his day centre. The Council will apologise, make Mrs D a symbolic payment and refund the family member their costs. Warwickshire County Council (20 009 421) Summary: We upheld one of Mrs X's complaints. The Council identified her late father Mr Y needed support to complete a financial assessment form, but it failed to provide that support. This caused Mrs X avoidable distress and time and trouble because she had to deal with the matter shortly after Mr Y died. The Council will apologise and reduce the outstanding debt by £100 to remedy the injustice. Avery Healthcare Group (20 013 399) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care for the complainant's mother at a residential care home, and about the Care Provider's failure to apply for Continuing Health Care (CHC) funding. This is because the complainant is not a Suitable Representative for her mother, who is now deceased. Somerset County Council (20 014 369) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint relating to medical care and safeguarding for the complainant's father. This is because the medical issues are out of our jurisdiction and there is nothing that further investigation could achieve in relation to the safeguarding issues. Kent County Council (21 000 554) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about comments a social worker made to the complainant. This is because the Council has provided a proportionate response. Essex County Council (20 006 658) Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to meet her sister's needs after she went to live with her mother in November 2019, until she moved to another care home in August 2020. There is little evidence of fault by the Council. However, it needs to bring its policies on direct payments into line with the Care Act 2014 and the Care and Support Statutory Guidance. Salford City Council (20 007 918) Summary: Ms C complained about the way the Council responded to her request for help and advice, when her main carer (her mother) potentially had Covid. We found fault with regards to the way the Council responded to this, which caused Ms C distress. The Council has accepted this and agreed to provide an apology to Ms C, pay her a financial remedy for distress, and share the lessons learned with staff. The Hygrove Limited and the Abbeycare Group (20 014 354) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint that his treatment provider failed to provide him with proper support and reasonable adjustments during his two day stay. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault having caused Mr B a significant enough injustice to warrant an ombudsman investigation. Surrey County Council (20 014 028) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's late complaint about the actions of her son's, Mr C's, care provider or the Council's safeguarding investigation into concerns she raised. This is because the complaint is late, Mrs B could have come to us sooner and there is no good reason to exercise discretion and disapply the law now. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (20 003 378) Summary: Miss X complains that the Council failed to accept responsibility for her aunt and cousin and consequently failed to meet their housing and care support needs. The Council has acknowledged its actions caused unnecessary delays and upset to Miss X and her family. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and service improvements. 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