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. Care 1st Ltd (20 002 953, Report) Summary: Adverse Findings Notice issued because Care 1st Ltd failed to provide the remedy recommended by the Ombudsman following an investigation.  Gloucestershire County Council (19 014 556) Summary: Ms P complained about the way the Council assessed and met Miss X's care needs. She says the Council failed to meet Miss X's needs, failed to support her partner (Mr L) who was her carer, failed to take account of relevant medical information, failed to provide over-night care, failed to implement promises it made in its complaint response, and that the social worker communicated poorly. Ms P says this meant Miss X was left in her own faeces and urine, her health worsened, and Mr L left because of the lack of support which resulted in burn-out. Hamilton Care Ltd (20 010 932) Summary: Mr X, a solicitor, complained Hamilton Care Limited (the care provider) failed to provide him with relevant financial records for the fees and invoices his client, Ms F, paid between 2013 and 2019 when she lived with the care provider as a self-funding resident. The care provider was at fault. The care provider failed to keep and provide copies of Ms F's financial records which is breach of the fundamental care standards. It leaves uncertainty over whether Ms F has paid the correct care fees during this period. The care provider should apologise to Mr X and pay him £150 to recognise the time and trouble spent pursuing this complaint. It should also provide him with all the financial information it holds on file for Ms F. Wellingborough Borough Council (20 011 300) Summary: Mrs B says the Council delayed considering her application for a disabled facilities grant, failed to communicate properly with her about the application, ignored recommendations from the occupational therapist, suggested an alternative which would create secondary hazards and offered a cash alternative without providing details. The Council delayed telling Mrs B about its decision in relation to part of the grant application. There is no fault by the Council in the other issues raised. An apology and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy for the area where the Council was at fault. Cornwall Council (21 004 453) Summary: We shall not investigate this complaint about the Council's assessment of what Mrs Y should pay towards her care home costs. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant us investigating. Devon County Council (20 011 068) Summary: Miss B complained about the Council's handling of a safeguarding alert made in respect of her late father. She said it caused him distress and she believed contributed towards his death. It also meant there were limitations on her and her mother's contact with him in the weeks before he died. She says there was a lack of clarity about the allegations, communication was inadequate and they were excluded from the process. All of this caused her distress. There was fault which caused injustice to Miss B. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (20 011 845) Summary: Mrs X complained about the care provided to her late mother, Mrs F, while at Dovehaven Care home (the Care home) which the Council commissioned and arranged. Mrs F died less than 24-hours after she arrived at the Care home. The Care home was at fault. It failed to keep a daily record of the care it provided to Mrs F and failed to treat her with dignity and respect. The Council, whom we hold accountable for these faults, agreed to apologise to Mrs X for the distress and uncertainty caused to her. Devon County Council (21 000 003) Summary: Mrs B complained about the Council's handling of a safeguarding alert made in respect of her late husband. She said it caused him distress and she believes contributed towards his death. It also meant there were limitations on her contact with him in the weeks before he died. She says she was not told what the allegations were, there was inadequate communication and she was excluded from the process. All of this caused worry and distress. Restful Homes (Worcestershire) Ltd. (21 001 532) Summary: We upheld Mrs X's complaints about communication with her about a safeguarding enquiry and about her late mother Mrs Y's care and supervision during a visit. The Care Provider will apologise for the avoidable distress to Mrs X. Dorset Council (21 002 010) Summary: The investigation into this complaint is discontinued. The Council waived the outstanding debt in full prior to involvement by this office. There is no outstanding injustice to Mrs X. London Borough of Lambeth (21 003 944) Summary: We will not investigate Miss V's complaint about London Borough of Lambeth's safeguarding investigation. We are unlikely to find fault with the Council's actions. Surrey County Council (21 005 788) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council handled an application for a deputyship because it is about the start of court action. The complaint is also late and there are no good reasons to consider it now. And Mr Z had the opportunity to take part in the court proceedings so it would also have been reasonable to expect him to raise his concerns in court. London Borough of Lewisham (19 020 920) Summary: The Council failed to properly follow safeguarding procedures or Shared Lives guidance when it was considering concerns about the care Mrs B was providing as a Shared Lives carer. The Council also failed to resolve a dispute with Mrs B regarding outstanding fees and money owed to her clients. These failings did not cause Mrs B any significant injustice. Staffordshire County Council (20 005 734) Summary: Mr C complains on behalf of his son and daughter in law, Mr and Mrs J, that the Council did not provide reasonable options when they applied for a Disabled Facilities Grant for their young child, G. Mr C says G still does not have the adaptations he requires. We do not find fault with how the Council considered the application. It has explored the application and made a decision in line with relevant legislation. London Borough of Islington (20 009 041) Summary: Mr B complained the Council's sensory team did not provide him with refresher mobility training and delayed providing equipment. Mr B said he was worried he would be less independent if the Council did not provide mobility training. We found fault with the Council causing injustice. The Council delayed providing Mr B with equipment and referring him for a Care Act assessment. The Council will undertake a Care Act assessment and make a payment to Mr B to remedy the injustice its faults caused. Nottinghamshire County Council (20 010 634) Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council decided where his father should receive care after he fell and broke his pelvis. He also complained the Council wrongly decided his father deprived himself of assets to reduce the fees he had to pay towards his care. The Council was not at fault. London Borough of Redbridge (20 013 366) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council's care provider, Churchfields Nursing Home, failed to provide her mother with the support she needed, resulting in her having a fall, and failed to respond properly to the incident, causing further distress. Churchfields was wrong to leave Mrs Y unsupervised when her family visited her. The Council needs to apologise to Mrs Y and her family for the distress they have been caused. Wakefield City Council (21 004 566) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint about the care provided to her mother, Mrs C. This is because further investigation could not add to the Care Provider's response or make a finding of the kind Mrs B wants. London Borough of Waltham Forest (21 005 406) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the way the Council undertook his carers assessment. This is because the Council has apologised, ensured Mr B has now received a copy of his carers assessment and his one-off payment and advised it will offer refresher training in the carer's assessment process. We are satisfied these actions remedy the injustice caused to Mr B. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (20 003 765) Summary: Mrs B complained about nursing, personal care, and discharge planning provided to her mother, Mrs E. We found fault by the Trust, in personal care, record-keeping and moving and handling. We also found fault by the Council by not involving Mrs B in the discharge planning meeting. The Council and Trust have agreed to apologise to Mrs B and take steps to improve their services. They have also agreed to pay a financial remedy in view of the distress caused to Mrs B. Cornwall Council (20 005 073) Summary: Ms X complains on behalf of Ms Y in her capacity as Mrs Z's court appointed deputy for property and financial affairs. Ms X complains the Council did not include deputyship fees in Mrs Z's financial assessment as an allowable expense and it intended to take Ms Z's capital below that allowed in statutory guidance to clear a debt she owed to the Council. We found fault in the way the Council decided to recover the debt from Mrs Z, calculated her financial assessment and failed to consider the deputyship fees as an allowable expense. These faults caused Mrs Z an injustice which cannot be remedied as she has since died. The Council accepts our recommendations it should make changes to its charging policy when considering requests for including deputyship fees in financial assessments. Suffolk County Council (20 013 285) Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council's handling of the care charges for their adult son, Mr Y's, attendance at a day centre. The Council was at fault as it failed to explain Mr Y would be required to contribute to his care costs when it arranged the care package. It then further delayed explaining the charges, failed to communicate clearly with Mr and Mrs X and failed to explain there would be a charge for non-attendance. The Council agreed to cancel the debt prior to April 2019, make a payment to Mr and Mrs X to acknowledge the frustration caused to them and review its processes to prevent a recurrence of the fault. London Borough of Enfield (21 004 330) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's financial assessment of the complainant's father in 2014. It lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now. Buckinghamshire Council (21 008 279) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council staff allegedly causing the loss of the complainant's job.This is because we cannot investigate employment related disputes. London Borough of Wandsworth (20 000 987) Summary: A nursing home took too long to tell the complainant, Miss D, that her mother Mrs M had died, as the Home had not kept proper records about next of kin. It also did not manage Mrs M's personal belongings or her finances properly. The NHS Trust responsible for managing Mrs M's money failed to do this adequately or to safeguard her finances. We did not find failings in the way the Trust and the Council partly responsible for commissioning Mrs M's placement at the Home handled Miss D's complaint. Miss D said she suffered avoidable distress and inconvenience, and she believed the Home owed money to Mrs M's estate. The organisations have agreed to apologise to Miss D and take action to prevent similar problems in future. They have also agreed to reimburse Mrs M's estate with any money due to it. Rosedene Nursing Home (20 000 987c) Summary: A nursing home took too long to tell the complainant, Miss D, that her mother Mrs M had died, as the Home had not kept proper records about next of kin. It also did not manage Mrs M's personal belongings or her finances properly. The NHS Trust responsible for managing Mrs M's money failed to do this adequately or to safeguard her finances. We did not find failings in the way the Trust and the Council partly responsible for commissioning Mrs M's placement at the Home handled Miss D's complaint. Miss D said she suffered avoidable distress and inconvenience, and she believed the Home owed money to Mrs M's estate. The organisations have agreed to apologise to Miss D and take action to prevent similar problems in future. They have also agreed to reimburse Mrs M's estate with any money due to it. HC-One Oval Limited (20 009 845) Summary: Miss X complains HC-One Oval Limited (HC-One) restricted her contact with her father, who lives in one of its care homes. This did not cause injustice to Miss X, as she has continued to see her father away from the care home. Shropshire Council (20 011 821) Summary: Mrs A complains the Council wrongly decided not to apply the twelve-week property disregard to her mother's property, causing her to pay more care fees than she should. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council for refusing to apply the twelve-week property disregard to Mrs X's finances. This is because there is no fault in how the Council reached its decision about Mrs X's deprivation of assets. Cadogan Care Limited (20 013 127) Summary: Miss X complained about how the Care Provider which runs the care home where her mother, Mrs Y, lived from May 2019 managed Mrs Y's care fees. The Care Provider failed to provide the terms and conditions of Mrs Y's stay before she became a resident and to provide regular invoices. This caused Miss X avoidable uncertainty, frustration, time and trouble. The Care Provider agreed to make a financial payment to Miss X and review how it manages incoming post. Staffordshire County Council (21 000 328) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged misconduct by carers working with the complainant's husband. This is because the complainant has not provided consent from her husband to act on his behalf. Additionally, if consent was provided, we would be unlikely to consider the complaint as there is insufficient injustice caused by the alleged fault to warrant investigation. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 000 714) Summary: it was not fault for officers to telephone and visit Miss X in response to her request for welfare assistance. London Borough of Newham (21 001 514) Summary: The Council did not properly consider Mr C's application to renew his blue badge that he requires due to his medical conditions. Its approach in processing blue badge applications, subject to further assessment, is not in line with guidance. In this case it caused injustice to Mr C in the form of distress by not processing his application correctly. We recommend the Council reconsider Mr C's application and apologise for its errors. North Yorkshire County Council (21 003 712) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the residential care her father received. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault or personal injustice to Ms X. It is also unlikely we could add anything to the response Ms X has already received. Essex County Council (19 018 751) Summary: Miss X complains about the service provided to the late Mr Y by care workers arranged by the Health Service. Also, the way it handled her safeguarding concerns about this. Miss X and Mr Y were distressed, and Mr Y sustained an injury which caused significant pain. The Ombudsman finds fault by the Council. It has agreed to apologise, pay Miss X £350, and take action to prevent similar faults in future. Staffordshire County Council (20 008 962) Summary: Dr X complained about delay in arranging a fast-track continuing healthcare assessment for her father. We did not find fault by a Council or a Trust in considering referral for a continuing healthcare assessment sooner. However, we found fault with the Council's complaint handling. We recommended a financial payment to recognise the additional distress this caused. Devon County Council (21 002 605) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the decision to withdraw Section 117 aftercare services from the complainant. This is because the complaint relates to matters that occurred more than 12 months ago. These matters are late for our consideration. Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (21 002 982) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the amount charged for her mother's care and the quality of care received. This is because the complaint is late and there is no reason Mrs X could not have complained sooner. Oxfordshire County Council (21 003 455) Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaint about the actions of the Council in 2016. This is because Ms B could have complained sooner and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate this late complaint now. Essex County Council (21 003 952) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant's application for a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Gloucestershire County Council (21 004 984) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about advice he was given in a telephone call. This is because further investigation could not provide Mr B with a different outcome to that he has already received. Hampshire County Council (21 005 252) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council will not re-issue concessionary travel vouchers. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice. London Borough of Waltham Forest (21 005 286) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's reply to the complainant's complaint and its failure to reply to his subsequent emails. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant enough injustice to justify our involvement. 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