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. Leeds City Council (20 005 938) Summary: Mr Z has made a complaint about the Council for failing to act in response to safeguarding alerts and referrals that he is at risk of abuse. Mr Z says the alleged fault has caused him distress and made him susceptible to harm. However, the Ombudsman has found the Council made appropriate enquires to assess whether Mr Z was at risk and there is no fault in how it made its decisions. The Ombudsman cannot question the merits of the Council's decisions in the absence of fault. Bristol City Council (20 007 011) Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to deal properly with him when he became homeless and failed to meet his eligible care needs. The Council has apologised for the lack of communication from its Housing Team. However, it has not addressed the failure to deal properly with Mr X's care needs, including a failure to meet them for several days. It needs to apologise, pay financial redress and improve its working practices. White Ash Brook (Accrington) Limited (20 008 135) Summary: Miss X complained the Care Provider, White Ash Brook Care Home, did not return her father, Mr Y's belongings after he died. She further complained the Care Provider could not explain what had happened to them and repeatedly misinformed her about what it was doing to find them. She said this caused her and her family significant distress. There was fault in the Care Provider's actions. It was unable to provide a record of Mr Y's belongings and did not properly communicate with Miss X. This caused Miss X distress and inconvenience. The Care Provider has made changes to its process to ensure this does not happen again and agreed to provide an apology and a £275 financial award to recognise the injustice caused to Miss X. London Borough of Croydon (20 010 661) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs C's complaint about the way the Council decided her application for a Blue Badge (BB). This is because there is not enough evidence of fault having caused a significant enough injustice to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. Durham County Council (20 005 043) Summary: Mr C complained the Council was wrong to conclude that the decision in 2010 to put his mother's property into a Trust, had been a deprivation of assets for the purpose of avoiding care and support charges. We found fault with the way the Council considered this matter and asked it to review its decision. The Council reviewed the case and decided to change its decision. As a result, it will no longer include the value of the property in Mrs M's financial assessment. Care UK Community Partnerships Limited (20 005 399) Summary: Mrs X and Mrs Y complain about the care their mother (Mrs Z) received at Care UK's Britten Court in the weeks leading to her death in April 2020 and the failure to arrange suitable contact with her during lockdown. There are gaps in Mrs Z's records and Care UK was not as open with Mrs X when responding to her complaint. This has caused avoidable distress for which it needs to apologise. Lancashire County Council (20 005 720) Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to deal properly with the charges for his mother's (Mrs Y's) care home, resulting in her paying so much she cannot afford to repay a debt to her family. The Council did not have to take account of the debt to Mrs Y's family when assessing her ability to pay for her care. However, the Council was wrong to charge Mrs Y for a permanent placement between 17 June and 7 July 2019, as her placement did not become permanent until 8 July. The Council needs to waive the additional charges for this time. Essex County Council (19 016 759) Summary: We found a Trust failed to appropriately assess and record the needs of a young woman with entitlement to aftercare services under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 before discharging her into the community. The Trust will apologise to the complainant and pay a financial remedy in recognition of the impact of this fault on her. The Trust, Council and CCG will also review relevant policies and procedures to prevent similar problems occurring in future. London Borough of Croydon (20 003 722) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's delay in completing a financial assessment for her mother's residential care and about the ensuing confusion about how much has been paid and how much is still owed. The Council failed to follow the Care Act statutory guidance which says the Council should pay the contract in full to the home. The Council delayed in completing the financial assessment and never provided details of payments required for the full period Mrs X's mother was in the care home. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (20 005 512) Summary: Mrs B complains on behalf of her mother about the Council's decision that she had deprived herself of capital to avoid care costs. Mrs B also complains about a top-up fee she was charged. We find no fault by the Council in respect of these substantive matters. There was a delay in the complaints process, but the Council apologised, and no further remedy is needed. The Council has agreed to our recommendation in respect of a service improvement. London Borough of Harrow (21 000 366) Summary: The Ombudsmen have decided they will not investigate a complaint about a person's health and social care as it has not been made by a suitable person. West Sussex County Council (20 002 333) Summary: Mr B complained about the actions of the Council associated with the provision and funding of care for his father, Mr C. We find no fault in respect of Mr B's complaint about the funding of care between March and June 2020. The Council has already accepted there was some fault in its handling of other aspects of Mr C's case and that this caused injustice. An improved remedy has been agreed in respect of this. Derbyshire County Council (20 004 090) Summary: The Council's delay in conduction on Occupation Therapy assessment of Mrs X was fault. As a result, Mr X cannot know if his wife's last weeks could have been less painful and more dignified. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Mr X £250 in recognition of this injustice. Sedgemoor District Council (20 006 803) Summary: Mr and Mrs C complained about the Council's administration of the Disabled Facilities Grant for their daughter. We find the Council met its limited duties by processing the grant and so was not at fault. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (20 007 202) Summary: Mrs F complains about council-commissioned homecare during the first COVID-19 lockdown. We have found fault which caused Mrs F distress and to miss out on care. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs F and make her a payment to remedy this. Plymouth City Council (20 007 252) Summary: The Council failed to properly assess Mrs C's adult social care needs and failed to offer Ms B a carer's assessment. This led to a potentially flawed support plan, and family having to meet many of Mrs C's needs with no evidence they were willing and able to continue doing so. The family may have missed out on support they could have had as carers, Ms B's health suffered as a result. The Council will apologise, pay Ms B £250, and provide staff guidance to improve future practice. London Borough of Camden (20 006 929) Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Ms X's complaint that the Council delayed in carrying out adaptations to a Council owned property. This is because we have no power to investigate a council when it is acting as a landlord. Wiltshire Council (20 013 950) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint about the way she has been treated by council staff. This is because the Council has apologised for the failures and advised Mrs B of the changes to processes it has put in place. We could achieve no more even if we investigated. Laurel Care Home Limited (20 000 950) Summary: Mr X complained about Mrs Y's experience in the Laurel Care Home and said she was overcharged and bullied during her short stay. Mr X would like Mrs Y to receive a refund. We found the Care Provider was not at fault. Greensleeves Homes Trust (20 003 662) Summary: Mrs C complained about the care her (late) mother received while she stayed at the care home. We found there was fault with regards to some of the actions of the care provider, for which the care provider has agreed to apologise. It will also provide a financial remedy for the distress Mrs C experienced and will share the lessons learned with care home staff. Wiltshire Council (19 018 748) Summary: Mr X complains the Council refused his request for medication to be allowed as disability related expenditure, refused to provide him with a copy of a letter his doctor had sent, and failed to properly deal with his request for help with the cost of a support worker to help him make telephone calls and write letters. He also complains the Council failed to implement evening support calls and provided false and defamatory information to a care agency. We find some fault with the Council's actions. 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