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. Surrey County Council (20 004 131) Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council assessed her social care needs. We find the Council was not at fault. London Borough of Enfield (20 007 703) Summary: Miss X and Ms Y complained the Council delayed finding a long-term residential placement for their relative Mrs Z. The Council initially delayed allocating a social worker to complete Mrs Z's needs assessment and delayed completing her financial assessment. This was fault. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms Y to acknowledge the distress and frustration this caused. There was no fault in the way the Council then arranged a placement. Royal Borough of Greenwich (20 009 397) Summary: There was fault by the Council as it failed to arrange an independent valuation of Mrs Y's interest in a property. The Council has now taken appropriate action to remedy the injustice by arranging a valuation. Stow Healthcare Group Limited (20 009 439) Summary: Mrs F complained that her mother, Ms G, received inadequate respite care, did not receive a contract and has not been adequately refunded for the fees paid for a four week stay. Mrs F says this caused Ms G distress, financial hardship and has put her to the time and trouble of making a complaint. We find the Care Provider did not obtain a signed contract on admission but its actions did not cause a significant injustice to Ms G. London Borough of Newham (20 009 733) Summary: Mr X complained about the suitability of his brother's care placement and care. We found there was no fault in the way the Council considered the concerns raised by Mr X. Northamptonshire County Council (20 011 226) Summary: The Council assessed Mrs Y in line with its charging policy and in line with Annex C of Care and Support Statutory Guidance and so there was no fault in charging Mrs Y for her care. Surrey County Council (20 011 374) Summary: There was fault by the Council as it did not act in line with the Ethical Framework for Adult Social Care during the first lockdown because it made no attempts to contact Mrs X and her family. The Council has agreed to make a retrospective direct payment and this remedies the injustice. Ethical Homecare Ltd (20 011 709) Summary: We could not achieve anything further by continuing to investigate this complaint. London Borough of Redbridge (20 007 273) Summary: Mrs C complained about two Occupational Therapy assessments she received to determine if she needed support with getting out of bed and using her bath. She said this resulted in her getting the equipment she needed. We found fault with the way in which the Council responded when Mrs C told OT1 that the bed lever was not suitable. There was also fault in referring Mrs C to the incorrect Ombudsman. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs C for any distress this caused her. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (20 011 057) Summary: Mr C complained the Council failed to pay him for the support he provided to Ms X (an adult who lives with him as part of the Shared Lives scheme). We did not find fault with the actions of the Council. Lancashire County Council (20 011 517) Summary: We cannot find fault by a support agency, acting on behalf of the Council, with respect to the substantive elements of this complaint. This is because the agency was not responsible for the matters the complainant has raised. However, the agency's complaint handling was poor, and the Council has agreed to take steps to address this with the agency. Medway Council (20 014 361) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the lack of a safeguarding investigation in relation to the death of the complainant's mother. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Safeguarding Board made its decision. Warrington Council (21 003 398) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a care assistant allegedly causing choking by administering a drink too quickly to the complainant's wife, Mrs U. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is nothing further that we could add to the previous investigation by the Care Provider. It investigated the matter but found there were no signs of a choking episode when the nurse on duty examined Mrs U. Warwickshire County Council (19 018 344) Summary: Mr X complains the Council's financial assessment of his mother's assets was wrong. This made her responsible for all of her care fees. He also complained the Council wrongly refused to offer a deferred payment arrangement. We found the Council was entitled to take the position it did about the land his mother part owned. However, it failed to properly value the land. It also failed to consider exercising discretion about offering a deferred payment arrangement. The Council accepted its communications were confused at times and that it failed to offer Mrs X a suitable home within her personal budget. We recommended actions to address the injustice the fault caused. Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (20 007 203) Summary: Mrs D complained the Care Provider was at fault when it cared for her mother Mrs E, who contracted COVID-19 when in its care. We do not find fault in the care Mrs E received or the decision of the Care Provider to stop visits to its homes. But we do have some concerns about the Care Provider's disclosure of information regarding infections. We also find there was some poor communication between Mrs D and the Care Provider after Mrs E passed away and in its handling of her complaint. This has led the Care Provider to make apologies to Mrs D. It has agreed to also put a note on its files regarding the finding of this investigation in accord with Mrs D's wishes. Staffordshire County Council (20 009 532) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to properly set up deferred payment arrangement for her mother Mrs Y and did not provide enough information. It also delayed sending the final invoice. Mrs X says this caused her much distress and worry about paying for Mrs Y's care. We found the Council did fail to set up a deferred payment arrangement properly but did provide enough information. It also delayed the final invoice. This caused Mrs X uncertainty and stress. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Mrs X £150. It will also take action to avoid similar problems in future. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (20 010 664) Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the way the Council calculated Mrs X's financial contribution towards her care package. They say they cannot afford to pay it and this has caused them financial difficulties. The Council was not at fault. Burlington Care (ASC) Limited (20 013 974) Summary: Mr B has made a complaint on behalf of Mr D who, for a time, was in residential care. Mr B says the Care Provider increased Mr D's care fees without giving any information with respect to costs. He says this meant Mr D's joint lasting power of attorneys could not make an informed decision whether they wished for the care to continue. The Ombudsman has identified fault with respect to the information given by the Care Provider, as well as how it implemented the changes. We have therefore recommended a number of remedies to address the injustice. Chantry Retirement Homes Limited (20 007 310) Summary: Mr C complained about the standard of care his wife received while in the Old Rectory Care Home. We did not find fault with the Care Provider's actions. Lancashire County Council (21 002 890) Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaint about the way she was treated by care staff. This is because further investigation is unlikely to provide Ms B with a different outcome to that she has received from the care provider. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 003 890) Summary: Mr X's complaint about how the Council was dealing with adaptions to his home has been resolved. The complaint will be discontinued. The Care Workshop Limited (21 003 936) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the behaviour of care staff and their alleged failure to wear face masks. This is because Mr X has not been caused a significant personal injustice. Mr X also complains about the way his complaint has been handled. But it is not a good use of our resources to investigate complaint handling as a standalone issue. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (20 010 883) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council did not properly consult and consider the impact of its policy change when it decided to end the Moving On service. Also, that it did not respond adequately to her concerns about this. She says this caused her much stress and anxiety and would like the Council to run the consultation again. We found fault in the Council's consultation so it has agreed to make sure communication and consultations are satisfactory in future. It has also agreed to apologise to Mrs X and the other users of the service in an accessible format and pay Mrs X £150 for her time and trouble. Bristol City Council (20 012 222) Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council dealt with her request for a Disabled Facilities Grant. We find the Council was at fault for delay in arranging the Occupational Therapy assessment. There were also faults in its communication with Ms X. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X for frustration caused. It is already writing an action plan to address Disabled Facilities Grant wait times. Essex County Council (20 012 268) Summary: The Ombudsmen will not investigate a complaint about a care home's restrictions on visiting and sharing of information with relatives during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is because we are unlikely to find fault causing injustice with the actions of the care home. Staffordshire County Council (20 012 642) Summary: Mr D complained about the Council's intentions to move his brother to a different care setting. He said this would cause distress and would not meet his brother's care needs. We have discontinued our investigation into this complaint. This is because the Council has not made a decision and there has been no change to Mr D's brother's care. There is therefore no injustice to consider. Essex County Council (20 012 711) Summary: There was fault by the Council. It failed to deal with Miss B's request to increase direct payments for her daughter's care for over two years, despite her repeated contact to resolve this. This caused Miss B prolonged and significant distress as she became more fearful that her daughter's care would be terminated. The Council should apologise to Miss B and her daughter, make a payment to her, and review how it can prevent the fault recurring. Avery at Loxley Park (Homecare) Limited (20 013 504) Summary: Ms X complains Avery the Care Provider failed to look after her late uncle, Mr Y, properly, resulting in him having a fall and causing her avoidable distress. Mr Y's fall was an unfortunate accident, rather than due to fault by the Care Provider. Cambridgeshire County Council (21 001 968) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint about the invoices the Council sent to her father for his care service. This is because there is not enough evidence for us to reach a safe conclusion. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (21 002 806) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is late with no good reasons to investigate it now. Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (19 020 444) Summary: Mrs D says the Council failed to adequately investigate safeguarding alerts about her late mother, Mrs C, regarding financial abuse and neglect. She says the Council's failures caused injustice to her in the form of distress and to her mother's estate in the form of financial loss. The Council accepted it was at fault for a failure to arrange family mediation in 2018. But it was also at fault for failures in its safeguarding procedures. These failures caused Mrs D injustice. The Council has already paid for Mrs C's outstanding care. It has agreed to pay Mrs D a sum in consideration of her time, trouble, distress and expenditure. Leeds City Council (19 020 736) Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments to enable her to engage with its adult social care service. We find the Council was at fault because it failed to consider alternatives to a face-to-face assessment. That has contributed to Ms X feeling unsupported by the Council. The Council has agreed to consider other ways of assessing Ms X's needs and share this with her. Southend-on-Sea Borough Council (20 005 109) Summary: The Council failed to coordinate some aspects of Mr Y's transition from education into adult services. There is evidence of delay, confusion, and poor communication in the assessment process. This caused Mr Y and his father avoidable frustration and uncertainty. Oakland Primecare Limited (20 010 666) Summary: Mrs X complains Oakland Primecare's Woodland Grove failed to provide appropriate contact with her mother in the weeks leading up to her death, causing unnecessary distress to her family. Oakland Primecare's policies on visiting at the end-of-life did not reflect Government guidance in place at that time. This prevented Mrs Y's family from visiting as often as should have been possible, causing avoidable distress. Oakland Primecare needs to apologise, pay financial redress and improve its working practices. Plymouth City Council (20 004 082) Summary: Mr X complained about poor quality care provided to his mother at the Drake Nursing Home. We have identified fault because it failed to have a diabetes management plan in place. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a modest, symbolic payment to Mr X. We have not found fault with other matters complained about. 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