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. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 002 034) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint that the Council should reimburse him monies paid for his wife's, Mrs B's care in 2018. This is because the Council remedied the fault in 2018 and there is no good reason to consider this late complaint now. Mr B can ask the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) to consider a retrospective appeal for CHC funding if he believes Mrs B should have been entitled to free health care during a period of time the NHS said she was not. Norfolk County Council (20 009 580) Summary: Ms C complains the Council is wrongly recovering an over payment. The Council is at fault for failing to give advance notice about a termination of a direct payment, and properly considering whether there are any arrears due. This has caused uncertainty and distress about the validity of a debt. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to review the alleged arrears, its contracts, and the steps it needs to take before ending a direct payment. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (20 009 858) Summary: Ms C complained about the way the Council caried out its financial assessment, to determine how much her son would have to contribute towards his support package. We did not find fault with the Council's actions. Royal Borough of Greenwich (19 017 187) Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council deal with Mrs X's request for help to repair her home. And there was also no fault in the way the Council dealt with her son Mr Y's social care needs. The Council carried out a social care assessment, drew up a care and support plan, offered care and support and housing to Mr Y and offered Mrs X a carer's assessment. Those actions were all in line with the Care Act 2014. Cumbria County Council (20 001 814) Summary: Mr X complained the Council's Generic Domiciliary Care policy financially disadvantaged his disabled mother, Mrs Y. He said the Council also incorrectly charged for Mrs Y's care. We do not find fault with the Council's policy. However, the Council was at fault for incorrectly charging Mrs Y for care she did not receive and for failing to respond to Mr X's complaints. The Council has already recalculated Mrs Y's care costs. It has agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £100 in recognition of the avoidable time and trouble he has gone to in pursuing his complaints. It will also remind relevant staff to follow the Adult Social Care complaints policy. Durham County Council (20 002 566) Summary: Mrs X complained about the care commissioned by the Council when her late father, Mr Y had a respite stay at Cedar Court. She said the Care Provider did not prevent Mr Y from having several falls and did not take medical advice when he had chest pains. She also said it did not tell Mrs Y about the falls or chest pain and took too long responding to her complaint. She says this caused them significant distress. We found the Care Provider failed to keep Mrs Y informed about the falls, chest pain and progress with her complaint. This put Mr Y at a significantly increased risk of harm. I do not find fault by the Care Provider in the action it took to prevent falls or the way it dealt with the chest pain. The Council has agreed to apologise and arrange to reimburse Mr Y's estate with 50% of his fees. It has also agreed to take action to ensure the Care Provider's practice, and its own, avoids similar failings in future. Private Medicare Limited (20 007 431) Summary: Mrs D complains about the Care Provider's actions during the COVID-19 pandemic while her late mother was a resident at St Mary's Care Centre. We have found it was fault for the Care Provider not to facilitate an indoor end of life visit for Mrs D and her brother. This has caused significant injustice to them as they missed an opportunity to spend time with their mother before she died. The Care Provider has agreed to apologise to them. Warwickshire County Council (20 008 328) Summary: We upheld Ms X's complaint about misleading advice. We did not uphold complaints about a financial assessment or about a social care assessment for her late mother Mrs Y. The Council will apologise and clarify policy on funding live-in care with all front-line social care staff responsible for social care assessments. Windmill Care Limited (20 008 688) Summary: Mrs X complained about the visiting arrangements in place at her mother's care home between July and November 2020. The Care Home was not at fault. City of York Council (20 008 734) Summary: Mrs X complains about the care her mother received at Care Home A, which the Council is accountable for, a lack of support from the Council over her concerns and a failure to deal properly with a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS). The Council accepts it was at fault over the handling of the DoLS and has apologised. There is no other evidence of fault causing injustice which warrants a remedy. Wakefield City Council (20 010 174) Summary: Mrs D complains that home carers were not wearing suitable personal protective equipment whilst caring for her during the COVID-19 pandemic. We have not found fault. Wakefield City Council (20 011 723) Summary: After the Council decided that Mrs X had deliberately deprived herself of assets, it delayed providing its decision in writing. The Council's letter did not fully explain the reasons for its decision and did not include information about her right of appeal. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B, review its decision and take action to prevent similar failings in future. Warwickshire County Council (20 013 287) Summary: There was fault in communication by the Council after Mrs X reported safeguarding concerns about her late mother. The Council has already taken appropriate action to remedy the injustice and so we have not made recommendations. Oxfordshire County Council (21 000 158) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint against Oxfordshire County Council (the Council) and Oxfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group (the CCG). Mrs X complains the Council and CCG did not provide free care for her late mother-in-law. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate it now. Leeds City Council (21 000 240) Summary: Mr B complained about the care and support provided to his mother when she was a patient of the Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust between October 2017 and January 2018. He also complained about the way Leeds City Council dealt with his mother's discharge arrangements when she moved to care home from hospital in January 2018. We will not start an investigation into this complaint as we cannot add to the previous investigations completed by the Trust and the Council. North Northamptonshire Council (21 001 076) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's and Ms C's complaint about the Council's safeguarding investigation into their concerns about their late mother's, Mrs D's, care during 2012 and 2013 or its responses and delay in considering their complaints. This is because we could not add to the Council's response or make a different finding of the kind Mr B and Ms C want. Essential Healthcare Solutions Limited (21 002 397) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about information being passed to Mrs Y's employer during the Care Provider's whistleblowing investigation. This is because the complaint is not related to action taken for the provision of adult social care. Cornwall Council (21 002 410) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr Z's complaint about the Council's decision not to vacate a legal charge on his late parents' property or to cancel a debt for care charges of £80,000. This is because the complaint is late and there is no reason Mr Z could not have complained in or soon after 2007 when he first knew of the Council's position. Bristol City Council (20 006 585) Summary: Ms X complains for Ms Y the Council failed to provide Ms Y with adequate care and support and to secure and store her possessions while she lived in two care placements. We have found no evidence of fault by the Council in the care and support Ms Y received. We found fault as the Council failed to ensure Ms Y's belongings were adequately stored. The Council has accepted it was at fault. It has already agreed to apologise to Ms Y, offered a compensation payment to Ms Y and a payment in recognition of the distress caused. So, we have completed our investigation. East Sussex County Council (20 007 655) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council misled her and her son, Mr Y, about his contributions towards his non-residential care costs. There was fault in how the Council charged Mr Y without any notice in 2017. The Council has reduced Mr Y's debt by the overcharged contributions and has agreed to make a financial payment to Mrs X for the time and trouble caused by having to make a complaint. This is a suitable remedy, so we completed our investigation. Surrey County Council (20 014 209) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about assurances a Council officer gave him about his ex-partner's condition prior to her discharge from hospital. This is because it is unlikely we would be able to add to the response already provided by the Council's investigation. Medway Council (21 000 055) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to reimburse Mrs X for a stairlift she purchased for her mother. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council. Isle of Wight Council (20 009 512) Summary: The Council is not at fault for charging for care after a period of free rehabilitation ended. The Council is at fault for failing to intervene when Mr D's condition worsened and to properly record care he was provided. Mr D has the uncertainty of not knowing whether, if the Council had acted earlier he would not have reached crisis point. The Council has agreed to remind staff about proper recording, the obligations owed to self-funders, and make a payment to Mr D and Mr C to reflect the uncertainty and anxiety caused. Northamptonshire County Council (20 012 706) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint about the Council's actions regarding the assessment and payment for care for her grandson, Mr C. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman. Medway Council (21 001 791) Summary: Ms X complains about the Council's response to financial safeguarding concerns she raised in connection with her father. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we will find evidence of fault by the Council. Redcar & Cleveland Council (21 001 917) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council spoke to Ms B. This is because we could not add to the Council's response or make a finding of the kind Ms B wants. Encasa Limited (21 002 576) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X's care provider sharing information with the Council without his consent. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) would be the best organisation to deal with this. London Borough of Ealing (21 001 603) Summary: Ms B complained the Council failed to ensured the property she moved to was adapted to meet her needs. As a result she had difficulty in using some of the property and in particular the kitchen. There was no fault by the Council. Leeds City Council (21 001 748) Summary: The complainant disagrees with the Council's decision not to approve a Disabled Facilities Grant application. We will not investigate this complaint. We are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council came to its decision. And an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. Staffordshire County Council (21 001 924) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a legal charge placed on the complainants property. This is because the events that led to the charge happened too long ago and there is no evidence of fault in how the Council has communicated with Mr C about the charge more recently. Kent County Council (20 009 032) Summary: Mr X complained the Council has unfairly charged him a contribution towards the cost of his care between June 2018 and June 2020. He also complained the Council incorrectly re-assessed his eligible care needs and left him without the support he needs. The Council was not at fault in charging Mr X a contribution towards the cost of his care and support. Nor is there any evidence of fault in the Council's decision in 2020 that Mr X is not eligible for care and support. 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