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. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (20 003 362) Summary: Mr X complained about the actions of a council commissioned domiciliary care company which led to his mother falling and the Council's role in his mother's move to a residential care home. Coventry City Council (20 005 425) Summary: X complained about the way the Council managed their relative, Y's, care. There was no fault in the way the Council assessed Y's capacity or prepared Y for a move to supported living. The Council was at fault as Y received poor care at his Council-commissioned residential placement which caused Y and X distress. The Council investigated and upheld there was poor care but has not offered an appropriate remedy. The Council has agreed to apologise to X and Y and make a financial remedy to acknowledge the poor care and distress caused. Worcestershire County Council (20 011 168) Summary: Mrs C complained about the way in which the Council carried out a financial assessment in 2015-16 to determine her mother's contribution. We decided to discontinue our investigation because there was an unreasonable delay in bringing the complaint to the Ombudsman. London Borough of Waltham Forest (21 001 704) Summary: We cannot lawfully investigate Ms Y's complaint about the Council's assessment of Mr X's care needs, the deprivation of his liberty, his residential placement, and financial arrangements. The Court of Protection has recently decided the case. Lincolnshire County Council (21 002 021) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the Council charging him for care. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (21 002 857) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's provision of suitable home care services for Mr B. There is not enough evidence any action by the Council or a care provider has caused Mr B significant injustice, so his complaint does not warrant investigation West Sussex County Council (19 010 499) Summary: Ms B complains the Council removed her care and support, meaning she cannot access support networks, medical treatment and services. She says the Council's care assessment does not properly address her needs and it has not completed adaptions to her Home. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault for delays in completing a care assessment. We do not find fault in how the Council completed the eventual assessments. Hertfordshire County Council (20 000 948) Summary: Mrs X complained about the remedy the Council provided for the distress it caused through delays in managing her mother's financial affairs. The Council's original apology was not a suitable remedy for the injustice caused to Mrs X. The Council agreed to pay Mrs X a financial remedy to recognise the avoidable inconvenience, distress, time and trouble it accepts it caused her. The remedy was suitable, so we completed our investigation. Lincolnshire County Council (20 005 057) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's actions in relation to a safeguarding investigation about his company. We do not find the Council to be at fault. It acted properly and in accordance with the relevant law and policy. Warrington Council (20 005 919) Summary: Mr C complained about the way through which the Council carried out his aunt's financial assessment for her permanent residential care. While we did not find fault with the financial assessment process itself, we found the Council was at fault for the way in which it responded to Mr C's questions about it. As such, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr C and pay a financial remedy for any distress he experienced. Telford & Wrekin Council (20 008 021) Summary: The investigation into this complaint will be discontinued. Mr X complained the Council withdrew his overnight care. He no longer wishes to have such a service as he is satisfied with the overnight mobile carer call out service. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (20 009 946) Summary: Mr X complained a council social worker made false accusations against him which resulted in his employer suspending him. Mr X says the evidence the Council gave his employer was inaccurate and his employer considered the accusations false. Mr X says the Council's action caused him to lose full pay for 10 days along with ill-health and distress. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council. Lancashire County Council (20 010 160) Summary: We find fault with the Council for failing to explain its duties under the care act. It did not offer Mr B a care home without a top up fee. There was also fault in the way it handled the complaint made by his daughter, Mrs C. This caused Mrs C an injustice. North Yorkshire County Council (20 011 064) Summary: Mr P has complained about the Council's responsiveness to a failing care home which cared for his late mother (Mrs H). He also complains about the way the Council transferred Mrs H to another care home. The Ombudsman has not found fault with how the Council responded to failings at the home but has with Mrs H's transfer. This caused Mr P an injustice and so we have recommended a small financial remedy be paid. North Yorkshire County Council (21 001 090) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care provided to the complainant's father in a care home, and the Council's response to safeguarding alerts raised by the complainant. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different or additional outcome. Additionally the complaint is made late and there are no good reasons to exercise the Ombudsman's discretion to consider it now. Birmingham City Council (21 001 461) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint about the Council's decision to include her sister's, Mrs C's share of her property in it is initial financial assessment. This is because the Council's actions have not caused either Mrs B or Mrs C a significant enough injustice to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. Wiltshire Council (20 008 212) Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider where his father should live after he was discharged from hospital. He also complained the Council failed to refer his father for assessment for Continuing Healthcare Funding. The Council was not at fault. London Borough of Hackney (21 002 165) Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's decision not to award her a Blue Badge. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we will find evidence of fault by the Council. Essex County Council (21 002 192) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's failure to confirm the amount she would have to contribute towards the cost of her care between September 2020 and January 2021. This is because the Council has agreed to write off the charges and this provides a suitable remedy for the complaint. London Borough of Bexley (19 015 102) Summary: There is no fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr X's parents when his brother was no longer able to care for them. There is also no fault in the way the Council raised concerns with the Office of the Public Guardian about Mr X's application for Lasting Power of Attorney. Durham County Council (20 005 046) Summary: Ms C complained the Council has failed to meet her needs. The hours the Council allocated are not enough and she has not had support from a care agency since April 2020. The Ombudsman found fault with the actions of the Council. The Council has agreed to pay Ms C £3,640 for not receiving support since April 2020, and share the lessons learned with its staff. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (20 005 729) Summary: Mrs C complained about the Council's decision that Mrs M deliberately deprived herself of assets in 2014 and 2017 to avoid them being used to pay for any care and support she may need in the future. We found fault with the way the Council considered the equity release from 2014. As such, we recommended the Council should review this decision, which it has now done. The Council has also agreed to apologise to Mrs M for the distress she experienced, and to share the lessons learned from this case with relevant staff. Independent People Homecare Services (20 005 910) Summary: The care provider's records show Mrs X refused replacement care after her disabled son Mr A injured his care worker, and that she asked to terminate the contract. The actions of the care provider in asking for the payment of notice specified in the contract did not cause injustice to Mrs X or Mr A. North Northamptonshire Council (20 006 896) Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council dealt with a dispute about Mrs Y's future care and living needs. Roseberry Care Centres GB Limited (20 007 189) Summary: Mr and Mrs B complained that Mr B received inadequate care during a respite placement. We found the care provider failed to provide an adequate service to Mr B causing him avoidable harm and the distress and inconvenience of an overnight hospital stay. This also caused Mrs B avoidable distress. We also find the care provider failed to keep full and accurate records about Mr B. To remedy the injustice caused, the care provider has agreed to make a payment to Mr and Mrs B. Wiltshire Council (20 008 767) Summary: There is no fault in the Council arranging residential care for Mr Y, which would be paid for by an interest free loan until deputyship was arranged. There is no evidence of delay or inadequate care by the Council when arranging care for Mrs Y. The Council assessed her mental capacity and worked with her to move her to residential care when it became clear she was not managing at home, as she was knocking on neighbours doors late at night and her son had to respond to calls from the neighbours. Sheffield City Council (20 009 292) Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council decided when his late father, Mr F's, capital dropped below the capital limit threshold and that it failed to reimburse Mr F's estate for overpaid care fees. The Council was at fault. It gave Mr X conflicting and confusing information about how it calculated the date Mr F's capital dropped below the threshold due to errors in its spreadsheet tool. It then delayed arranging reimbursement of overpaid care fees by six months. The Council agreed to provide evidence it has reimbursed Mr F's estate and pay Mr X £150 to recognise the frustration and time and trouble caused by the delay. Lincolnshire County Council (20 009 382) Summary: Mr X complained about missed appointments by his social worker and that staff were unprofessional when he telephoned the social care team to ask about the appointments. He considers the Council has not taken his concerns seriously. The Ombudsman finds no fault on the Council's part. Cornwall Council (20 009 470) Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about the way the Council assessed a person's care needs and its handling of the charging arrangements for his care. This is because the Council says it still wishes to investigate aspects of the complaint, and we consider it reasonable to allow this before beginning our own investigation. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (20 009 473) Summary: Mr X complained about the actions of the Nursing Home in which his father was resident and the Council's safeguarding investigation into concerns raised by a 111 call operator and Mr X. There was no fault. City of York Council (20 010 694) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council provided conflicting and inaccurate information about whether her son, Mr S, would have to continue paying contributions towards his care and tenancy agreement after he returned home when the country went into lockdown in March 2020. The Council was at fault when it provided Mrs X with information which did not make clear which services would be reimbursed but this did not cause Mr S an injustice. Warwickshire County Council (21 001 298) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint that the Council has failed to pay the full cost to her care home of caring for a young person who stayed some months after she became an adult and ceased to be a 'looked after child'. I am satisfied with the Council's action. It has apologised to Ms X for the delay and is paying the money owed. The Council has acknowledged poor complaint handling and has given advice to officers. Nugent Care (21 001 387) Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaint about care provided to her late mother in 2019. This is because any further investigation by the Ombudsman could not add to the care provider's responses or provide Ms B with the outcome she wants. Nottinghamshire County Council (21 001 628) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to disregard a house owned by the complainant's parents from a financial assessment relating to care support fees. This is because the complaint is made late and there are no good reasons to exercise the Ombudsman's discretion to look at it now. City of York Council (20 007 467) Summary: Mrs C complains the Council carried out an inadequate safeguarding investigation into the circumstances surrounding the admission of her father-in-law into hospital in April 2020. We uphold the complaint as the Council failed to carry out a safeguarding investigation in the way it promised. However, we do not consider that fault affected the outcome of the investigation. The injustice caused to Mrs C is therefore that the Council raised her expectations unnecessarily. The Council has agreed to apologise. Gloucestershire County Council (20 007 653) Summary: The Council was at fault for not allowing for Mrs Y's service charge when it calculated her care contributions. During the course of our investigation, the Council recalculated Mrs Y's fees. The Council has agreed to refund Mrs Y the overpayments she has made. Northamptonshire County Council (20 008 039) Summary: Mr D complained the Council failed to advise his parents until March 2019 that his father's transport funding had stopped in 2016 and they should not use his direct payments for this purpose or socialising. Mr D says his parents were faced with an unexpected bill and suffered unnecessary upset and distress which particularly affected his father's health. We have found fault by the Council but consider the agreed action of an apology, removal of charges and a review of procedures is enough to provide a suitable remedy. Lincolnshire County Council (20 008 145) Summary: Mr D complained about the way the Council carried out a safeguarding investigation into allegations of negligent care of his relative, Mr E, while resident at a care home. We found no fault with the actions of the Council. Warwickshire County Council (20 008 468) Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of Mrs G about the Council's decision that she deprived herself of assets to avoid paying her care fees. Mr X says as a result, the Council charges the maximum fees for Mrs G's care and wants to recover the outstanding care fees. Mr X says this has caused Mrs G and her family significant distress. There was no evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decisions. Durham County Council (20 011 000) Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's assessment and the amount of support it provided. She said this affected her independence and caused her to feel like a prisoner. We find the Council was not at fault in the support it provided but it did not fully assess her needs. This caused Ms X uncertainty about the assessment. It has agreed to apologise and complete a fresh assessment with an OT and someone with knowledge of her health conditions. DEMA Residential Homes Limited (20 012 223) Summary: Mr X complained the actions of his mother's Care Home prevented him and other family members from seeing her before she died. There was no fault in the Care Home's actions. Worcestershire County Council (20 012 981) Summary: Miss T complains the Council failed to carry out a safeguarding investigation into her allegations of abuse and neglect by the Ambulance service. She says paramedics are walking out on her, leaving her in pain and being abusive towards her. The Council has considered the information provided to it correctly and decided not to investigate. There was no fault in the Council's actions. Surrey County Council (20 000 986) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about care, support and decisions made by the Council in 2018 and 2019 regarding his mother, Mrs C. This is because we could not provide Mr B with the outcome he wants. It would have been for Mr B as Mrs C's attorney at the time to dispute Mrs C's capacity to make the decision she made to live with her other son, Mr D against the wishes and concerns of Mr B. Mr B does not have consent or standing to complain on behalf of Mrs C now. Hertfordshire County Council (20 006 310) Summary: Mr X complained that the Council did not advise Mr Y of its funding responsibilities when it assessed Mrs Z. He also complained about its delay dealing with his complaint and refunding Mr Y. He says this caused Mr Y severe stress and serious health difficulties. We found the Council was at fault and did not comply with the Care Act 2014 when it did not assess Mrs Z's finances. It was also at fault in the delay putting this right. This caused Mr Y significant stress and he paid £64,000 unnecessarily, which was only returned after almost three years. The Council has agreed to pay Mr Y interest on the £64,000 and £1,000 for the stress and lost opportunity it caused. It will also pay Mr X £300 for the stress, time and trouble it caused him. Sheffield City Council (20 003 507) Summary: Mr X complains Haythorne Place care home, where the Council placed his mother, Mrs Y, failed to look after her properly during the first COVID-19 lockdown before her death in May 2020. Haythorne Place's records of the care provided for Mrs Y are inadequate, which leaves doubt over whether it was meeting all her needs properly. The Council should apologise to Mr X and Mr Y for the unnecessary distress this has caused them. Rampion Limited (20 007 621) Summary: Mr D complained about the domiciliary care his mother, Ms E, received from the Care Provider. We find that Mr D and Ms E suffered an injustice when the Care Provider failed to provide suitable care to Ms E. The Care Provider has agreed to our recommendations to address this injustice. 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