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. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (20 003 753) Summary: Mr C complains about the Council's response to his requests for help with Mrs B's housing and care needs and his safeguarding concerns. Mr C says Mrs B did not receive homelessness advice and help or appropriate care and he did not receive support as Mrs B's carer. We have found fault by the Council in its failure to properly evidence it offered a carer's assessment. We consider the agreed actions of an apology, payment and offer of a carer's assessment provide a suitable remedy. London Borough of Hackney (20 004 437) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide community access for his son Y in accordance with his care plan. He also says the Council failed to advise him about costs for activities at the day service that Y attends. We have found fault with the Council for failing to provide male carers to support Y with accessing the community. The Council has already offered to pay Mr X £1000 to remedy the injustice caused. We consider this to be an appropriate remedy. We have also found fault as we are unable to investigate the way in which the Council considered respite provision because relevant records are not available. Staffordshire County Council (20 005 835) Summary: We have not found fault in the way the Council assessed Mr C's finances. Mr C's father may ask for a review of Mr C's charges if he has new information the Council should consider. The Council is also considering a review of its charging policy because of new case law. Torbay Council (20 010 754) Summary: the complainant says the Council failed to explain and consider the criteria for waiving repayment of part of a Disabled Facilities Grant. The Council says it acted in line with its legal right to reclaim any grant where the property is sold within ten years of the grant. We found the Council acted with fault in not outlining its discretionary powers or inviting information on which it could decide if it should exercise its discretion. The Council agreed to review the decision. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (20 010 823) Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Council. The Council arranged respite care when Mr X was discharged from hospital and there is no evidence the Council told the family it would be free reablement care. There is also no evidence of inadequate care in the care home or of delay in organising home care. London Borough of Croydon (20 012 636) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has incorrectly charged her mother, Mrs C, for the cost of her care. She says carers visits were often shorter than what has been charged which meant Mrs C was being asked to pay for care she did not receive. There was fault by the Council with the amount Mrs C was asked to pay. The Council has agreed to apologise and remind the care provider about the importance of submitting accurate information, in addition to the remedy it has already provided by reducing the amount owed by Mrs C. Methodist Homes (20 013 564) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the residential care his mother received. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault or personal injustice. It is also unlikely we could add anything to the response Mr X has already received. Nottinghamshire County Council (20 013 881) Summary: Mr B complained the Council wrongly assessed his mother as having 'notional capital' to pay for care following a series of gifts and a property transfer she made between 2014 and 2017. We uphold the complaint, finding the Council has not taken account of relevant matters in its decision. This has caused Mr B distress because of the uncertainty created. The Council accepts these findings and has agreed action to remedy this injustice, including carrying out a review of its decision. London Borough of Croydon (21 001 972) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision to reduce his 1:1 support hours following a recent review. This is because the Council has offered to carry out a further review which it is reasonable to expect Mr X to use before we will consider his complaint. City of York Council (21 002 867) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint about the actions of her late father's, Mr C's care provider. This is because further investigation could not add to the care provider's response or make a finding of the kind Mrs B wants. We are satisfied an apology and changes to policies and procedures remedies the injustice. London Borough of Newham (21 003 491) Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaint about the Council's failure to provide care and support to her friend Ms C. This is because Ms C is now deceased, and we could not provide her with a remedy for any fault an investigation might uncover. Telford & Wrekin Council (21 003 783) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about events in a care home. Sheffield City Council (20 000 997) Summary: Mr G says a care company providing care on behalf of the Council, Direct Health Ltd, neglected his grandmother, Mrs C, for 14 months. He says the Council failed to notice the neglect, failed to investigate his safeguarding concerns then tried to cover up its own and the care company's failures. He says this caused Mrs C and him injustice in that Mrs C suffered health problems because of the poor care and their relationship was affected. He also complains about an inadequate complaint response. The Council was at fault for the poor care provided by the care company, for failing to investigate a safeguarding concern and for a failure to deal promptly with Mr G's complaint. However, the Council has already refunded some fees and apologised so no further remedy is required. Cambridgeshire County Council (20 010 652) Summary: The complaint about the arrangements to meet Mr C's health needs is not within our jurisdiction. Although the Council is arranging the support, it does so on behalf of the Clinical Commissioning Group who is an NHS body. We do not have powers to investigate NHS bodies, so have referred the case to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. Waterlooville Care Limited (20 011 457) Summary: The Care Provider's complaint response was inaccurate and the Care Home failed to take appropriate action to escalate concerns when Mrs Y's condition deteriorated. The Care Provider will apologise in writing to the family for the avoidable distress and confusion. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (20 013 884) Summary: Miss B complains on behalf of her adult son Mr D about his health and social care support. We will not investigate the complaint as we are not satisfied Mr D has fully consented to Miss B complaining to us on his behalf. We do not therefore consider Miss B suitable to bring the complaint to us. West Sussex County Council (21 004 263) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care the complainant's mother received and Council's failure to disregard a property share in the assessment of care fees. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate it now. It would also be proper for the issues raised to be considered in a court of law. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (21 004 399) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's investigation into Ms X's mother's care. This is because the events complained of happened in 2016 and 2017 and so this is a late complaint and we cannot investigate. Essex County Council (21 006 322) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the support provided by the Council to the complainant. This is because we could not add anything further to the previous investigation by the Council. Sheffield City Council (20 009 567) Summary: Mr X complained about the care provided to his partner by a care provider, acting on behalf of the Council, during a respite stay in 2018. There was no evidence of fault by the care provider causing a significant injustice. Hampshire County Council (20 010 683) Summary: Mrs Y complained about the way the Council dealt with her late father, and its decision to accept his refusal to share information about his care with the family. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation into the complaint. This is because most of Mrs Y's complaint is late, the injustice during the limited period we could investigate is not significant enough to justify our continued involvement and we cannot achieve a different outcome for Mr X. Buckinghamshire Council (20 013 010) Summary: The Council failed to properly consider Mrs X's application for a blue badge. It failed to consider the impact of her disability and her need for a mobility aid. Staffordshire County Council (20 003 955) Summary: There was some fault in the Home's care and support provided to Mr C, particularly in relation to administration and labelling of medication, knowledge of Makaton, safeguarding possessions and communication about the notice it gave to Mr C. The Council has agree to apologise to Mr C's mother and pay £200 to Mr C. London Borough of Wandsworth (20 005 849) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's approach to her mother's financial assessment. The Council accepts its social worker should not have conducted an interview with Mrs X's mother (Mrs P) without Mrs X being involved. It has apologised for this, which I consider is sufficient remedy. We have not found other fault. London Borough of Havering (20 009 862) Summary: Mrs X complained a Best Interest Assessor disclosed confidential information about a phone call she had in relation to her grandmother's Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards assessment to another relative without her consent. I have discontinued this investigation because the conflicting evidence means I cannot make a finding, even on the balance of probabilities. Further investigation into the matter will not lead to a different outcome and therefore we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants. Derbyshire County Council (20 009 986) Summary: Mr D complained about the increase in care fees for his mother, Mrs E, who is a self-funding resident at the Council's care home. We find fault with the Council as it delayed providing Mr D with written notification of the care fees. However, this did not cause Mr D or Mrs E an injustice. Monread Lodge Nursing Home Limited (20 011 264) Summary: The Ombudsman finds fault with the care provider for keeping Mr X under one-to-one care without clear rationale. This meant the care provider charged Mr X for care without good reason. The Ombudsman also finds fault with the care provider for poor record keeping. The care provider has agreed to refund the fees for one-to-one care and pay a financial sum in recognition of the injustice caused. Athena Healthcare (Park Road) Limited (20 012 851) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Care Provider withdrew escorts for Mr Y's appointments at short notice causing Mrs Y significant and undue distress. She also complained about the way the Care Provider dealt with Mrs Y's complaint about this. We found the Care Provider gave too short notice to Mrs Y and did not respond to her complaint appropriately. We recommended the Care Provider apologise and take action to avoid similar problems in future. North Lincolnshire Council (20 013 279) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council assessed the complainant's finances. This is because it is not yet possible to determine if he has suffered significant injustice. London Borough of Croydon (21 000 524) Summary: We do not propose to investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to protect the complainant, and its subsequent refusal to initiate a safeguarding investigation. This is because there is no evidence of fault warranting investigation in its treatment of the complainant. We cannot investigate a parallel complaint about the Council's failure to protect her parents, as she does not have authority to complain on their behalf. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (20 013 045) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint about missing items belonging to his deceased mother. This is because the injustice is not significant enough. Even if we were to investigate, we could not say what happened to the items or provide a worthwhile outcome for Mr X. Birmingham City Council (21 000 226) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to allow the complainant's mother to move from her residential care home. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We could not achieve the complainant's desired outcome as his mother was subject to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS), which we could not challenge, and has now died. West Sussex County Council (21 002 988) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to give the complainant a Blue Badge. This is because the Council has offered to reconsider the application and carry out a face-to-face mobility assessment. We are With You (21 004 163) Summary: We cannot investigate a complaint about the wrong medication given to Mr B. This is because we do not have jurisdiction to consider complaints about pharmacists. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (20 001 972) Summary: Mr A complained health and social care professionals failed to adequately assess his brother's, Mr B's, needs before discharging him from hospital. Mr A said this meant Mr B had an inadequate care package which, in turn, placed avoidable stress and worry on the family. The Ombudsmen find no fault in the way professionals assessed Mr B's needs. Gloucestershire County Council (20 003 176) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly consider whether some of her son's outgoings were disability related expenses for the purpose of a financial review. We found there was fault. We recommended an apology, a payment to reflect the time and trouble Mrs X spent bringing the complaint, and a review of the charges applied to her son. Dorset Council (20 007 823) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's decision backdate charges her care and support services. She also complained about how her complaint was considered. We do not find fault with the Council's decision to backdate charges or its complaint handling. City of Wolverhampton Council (20 008 211) Summary: the complainant says a care provider commissioned by the Council failed to properly manage financial support for the client. The Council said its care provider responded to the complaint, but it had yet to complete a full investigation and offered to do so. We found the Council through its commissioned Care Provider acted with fault and recommended a proportionate remedy. Darlington Borough Council (20 010 009) Summary: There is evidence of delay by the Council in sending an invoice. The Council has already offered a satisfactory remedy of this complaint before the complaint came to the Ombudsman by offering a payment plan, an apology and £100 compensation. There is no fault in the Council's calculation of invoices or asking for direct payments to be repaid in accordance with its policy. London Borough of Merton (20 010 884) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly assess her application for a blue badge and wrongly determined she was not eligible. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed Mrs X's application for a blue badge. Worcestershire County Council (20 008 729) Summary: Mr C complained about the way in which the Council carried out a safeguarding investigation into concerns raised against him and against his mother's care home. He said this resulted in distress to him. I found fault with the way the Council carried out its investigation. The Council has agreed to provide an apology to Mr C, pay a financial remedy and (re)investigate issues through its complaints process. Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (20 009 068) Summary: the complainant Mrs X complained about the poor service given at the Care Provider's Mortain Place care home at Pevensey Bay Road Eastbourne and its offer of a remedy. The Care Provider said it provided care in line with the care plans but recognised Mrs X's dissatisfaction and offered £500. We found the Care Provider caused an injustice for which it offered a proportionate remedy. Bedford Borough Council (19 012 955) Summary: The Council delayed providing a full assessment of Ms B's needs or a care plan which sets out how to meet those needs. There was failure in the Council's communications with Ms B and with the housing team. As a result, Ms B did not know how her needs would be met if she moved out of her mother's home. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms B, provide her with a needs assessment, care plan and personal budget and pay her £750. 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