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. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (19 018 946) Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of her mother Mrs Y, the Council delayed completing a care needs assessment, delayed making direct payments and about faults in how it conducted a safeguarding investigation. Ms X says she was caused distress and incurred solicitor and loan costs. The time taken to complete the care assessment does not amount to fault. The original incorrect financial assessment was not due to fault by the Council as it could not have known the figures were gross and not net income. There is no fault in how the Council conducted the safeguarding investigation though it does acknowledge it could have given more consideration to the family dynamics before starting the investigation. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (20 007 444) Summary: There was no fault in the information disclosed by the Council about one safeguarding matter, or in its decision to investigate another matter. Nor is there evidence of fault in the Council's decision to restrict its disclosure of information about the safeguarding enquiries, as they are ongoing. There was some fault in the Council's complaint handling, and while this did not cause an injustice to the complainant, the Council has agreed to amend its policy to prevent a recurrence. Leicester City Council (20 008 088) Summary: There is no fault in the way the Council considered concerns raised about Mrs D's care. However the Council was at fault for failing to complete a care review for Mrs D. The Council's actions caused Mr C confusion and he lost trust in the Council's accounting process. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr C and is already in the process of examining procedures to ensure people using services receive a yearly review. Kent County Council (20 009 349) Summary: Mr B complained that the Council delayed in making suitable care arrangements for his mother, Mrs C when she was discharged from hospital. We find no fault with the Council's actions. Gloucestershire County Council (20 010 771) Summary: There was no fault by the Council in refusing to share information with Ms X about her mother Mrs B, as Mrs B had specifically asked it not to do so. The request for information to complete a financial assessment was not fault on the part of the Council: Ms X held power of attorney for Mrs B's finances. Liverpool City Council (21 000 816) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's handling of a safeguarding matter relating to her father. This is because the Council has provided a suitable remedy and it is unlikely investigation would achieve anything more. Kent County Council (20 006 985) Summary: the complainant, Mr X, complained the Council failed to properly assess his mental health needs within the time set by the Council's guidance or properly consider his complaint. The Council accepted some fault and apologised. We found the Council at fault and recommended an apology, payment of £200 and sharing the decision with staff to improve services. Cornwall Council (20 009 975) Summary: The Council delayed completing a financial assessment to decide what Mrs C should pay towards her residential care fees. The Council's delay meant Mrs C accrued a large debt, it was a shock to receive an invoice for over £23,000 having never been in debt in her life. The Council delayed dealing with the complaint. Mrs C wants the Council to waive the debt, but this is a debt for which she is liable, The Council will offer Mrs C a reasonable repayment plan. The Council will apologise for its delay, pay £200 each to Mrs C and Mr B, and improve its procedures. Portsmouth City Council (20 011 238) Summary: Mrs E complained about the Council's refusal to install a shower screen. We find there was no fault in the Council's initial decision-making not to install a shower screen. The Council has now installed the shower screen, but Mrs E is unhappy with the installation. We cannot investigate Mrs E's complaint about the installation of the shower screen because it falls under the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman Service. Sheffield City Council (21 000 521) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint about care provided to her late mother, Mrs C, in 2019. This is because Mrs C is now deceased so we cannot remedy any injustice caused to her even if an investigation uncovered fault. We could not add to the care provider's response or make a different finding of the kind Mrs C wants. London Borough of Waltham Forest (21 001 492) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the way the Council undertook his carers assessment and support plan or its decision not to provide ongoing monthly payments so he can purchase a car. This is because we could not add to the Council's response or make a finding of the kind Mr B wants. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (21 001 590) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the Council's involvement regarding his mother, Mrs C. This is because the Council has partially upheld some of Mr B's complaints and further investigation by the Ombudsman could not achieve a different outcome. Churchill Health Care Ltd (20 008 754) Summary: Mr X complained about the quality of care provided to his father Mr Y. There were issues with communication between the care provider and Mr Y about late calls or staffing changes, and the support plan was not clear about which domestic tasks staff would carry out. This was fault and is likely to have caused Mr Y some anxiety. There was no fault in the way the care provider decided it could not support Mr Y with a bath or in the way it reached the decision to end the care package. It has already undertaken procedural changes to address these faults. It has also agreed to apologise to Mr Y and pay him £100 to acknowledge the impact of the faults. Cumbria County Council (20 014 092) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about comments made by the Council at a safeguarding meeting. This is because it is unlikely we could add to the Council's response or achieve anything more for the complainant. Northumberland County Council (20 000 293) Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council has dealt with Ms Y's direct payment account and its decision to decline arranging a further independent audit of her account. The Council is not at fault for declining to offer a further independent audit to Ms Y. The Council is at fault as its communication with Ms Y lacked clarity which caused upset to her. The Council has apologised to Ms X and Ms Y for the confusion and upset caused which is an appropriate remedy. I have therefore completed my investigation London Borough of Islington (20 002 235) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms B's complaint about the stopping of her direct payments. This is because the NHS issued the payments, and we cannot investigate the NHS. Liverpool City Council (20 004 323) Summary: There were multiple failures in the late Mrs Y's care at a council-funded care home, including an avoidable serious deep tissue injury. The council needs to apologise and make her daughter Mrs X a symbolic payment to reflect her avoidable distress. The council will take action described in this statement to minimise the chance of recurrence. West Sussex County Council (20 008 267) Summary: Ms C complained the Council failed to apply a discretionary property disregard, as part of her mother's financial assessment for residential care. She also complained the Council did not allow her to challenge this decision through an appeals / complaints process. We found there was fault that the Council did not allow her an opportunity to challenge its decision. The Council has agreed to apologise for the distress this caused Ms C and to change its relevant practice to enable others an opportunity to challenge this type of decision in the future. Hertfordshire County Council (20 008 866) Summary: There were some delays and failings in the way a mental health team and social services supported a woman with dementia. It is unlikely these failings changed the course of events but the delays by the Trust caused some avoidable stress in their own right. The Trust will acknowledge these failings and apologise for the impact. Worcestershire County Council (21 000 859) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the Council's safeguarding investigation into his mother's, Mrs C's care provider. This is because neither the actions of the care provider or the Council have caused Mrs C a significant enough injustice to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. Gloucestershire County Council (20 004 328) Summary: Mrs T complains on behalf of Mrs B about how the Council dealt with Mrs B's care needs assessment request. There was delay by the Council in some parts and fault in revoking Mrs B's Direct Payment offer. This has caused Mrs B distress, time and trouble and loss of having a Direct Payment sooner. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused. Kent County Council (20 005 371) Summary: Mr B complained the care provider commissioned by the Council failed to provide his father with satisfactory care, failed to contact other relatives when his father's mobility declined and failed to properly investigate his complaint. There were missed opportunities to discuss Mr B's father's deteriorating mobility with family members and the complaint investigation failed to identify that. An apology and payment to Mr B is satisfactory remedy. Leeds City Council (20 010 043) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the Council's financial assessment for his son. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in this case to warrant us investigating. Surrey County Council (20 010 857) Summary: There was fault by the Council in its communication with Mr X, a failure to commission care services to meet his eligible needs from October 2020 and continuing and a failure to include relevant information from health professionals in one of the social care assessments. There was also a failure to have in place a basic contingency plan in case of an emergency. These faults caused Mr X avoidable distress and meant he did not receive the care and support services to which he had a legal entitlement. The Council will apologise, ensure Mr X has care and support in place without further delay and pay him £1500. Brighton & Hove City Council (21 000 002) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr D's complaint about the Council's actions regarding his late father-in-law, Mr E. This is because the court determined where Mr E should live, and any concerns Mr D had about the Council actions could have been considered by the court. We cannot consider any matters connected with and decided by a court. We will not investigate Mr D's late complaint about the Council's failure to safeguard Mr E in 2019. This is because it is unlikely further investigation would provide Mr D with a different outcome to that already provided by the Council. We could not provide Mr E with a remedy even if an investigation uncovered fault as he is now deceased. 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