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. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (20 009 537) Summary: There was fault in the Council's communication about the charges for care home fees, a failure to carry out a financial assessment and a long delay in the Council's response to Mrs B's complaint. The Council also failed to consider whether Mrs C had any disability related expenditure. The Council has agreed to apologise, carry out a review of the financial assessments, pay a financial remedy and carry out service improvements. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (20 009 859) Summary: Ms X complained about the care her mother received from two care agencies commissioned by the Council. She also complained she was not told about the costs involved in her mother's support. She said that if she had been, she would have stopped the care earlier. We found there was fault by the Council in not telling Ms X about an increase in the cost of her mother's care, which resulted in an outstanding debt to the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X for the distress this caused and pay her a financial remedy. It will also share the lessons learned with its staff. London Borough of Islington (20 010 763) Summary: Miss R complains that the Council did not inform her mother, Mrs C's landlord when it moved her into a care home. She says this caused injustice because rent and bills were left to accumulate for two years before her death. The Council was not at fault. At the time Mrs C went into the care home, her daughter, Miss S, was looking after her affairs. Mrs C was a private tenant who paid her own rent. The Council had no reason to contact Mrs C's landlord. Plymouth City Council (20 014 289) Summary: the complainant complained the Council failed to properly consider her application for a Blue Badge. The Council says it properly considered all the information but failed to give a detailed decision letter as recommended in government guidance. We found the Council acted with fault and it agreed to reconsider the application having given the complainant time to present further information and to pay her £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused. Kent County Council (20 005 077) Summary: The Council was not at fault for not involving Mr X in the decision to move his mother into residential care. The Council was not at fault for how it investigated safeguarding concerns about Mrs Y's care, however the Council was at fault for recording its opinion of Mr X's mental state on the safeguarding records. The Council has already provided an appropriate remedy for any injustice caused. Bess Care Ltd (20 007 399) Summary: Ms C complained to us about the homecare she received, the way in which the care provider investigated an incident, and the way in which it terminated her support package. We found fault with the way in which the care provider recorded some information. Leeds City Council (20 010 153) Summary: Mr X complained about a financial assessment the Council completed for his mother, Mrs Y, in June 2020. There was fault in how the Council decided Mrs Y deprived herself of capital. The Council agreed to review the decision and provide training to its staff. Somerset Care Limited (20 010 798) Summary: Mrs X complained about poor communication and poor care provided to her father, Mr Y, in the three months prior to his death. The care provider upheld there was poor communication and apologised to Mrs X for this but did not accept there was poor care. The care provider was at fault. There was poor communication which caused Mrs X distress and uncertainty. There is no evidence of poor care. The care provider has agreed to pay Mrs X £150 as a symbolic payment in recognition of the distress and uncertainty caused by the poor communication. Devon County Council (20 012 406) Summary: Mrs X complains about failings by the Council about it conducting a financial assessment about her late father's care needs. We found the Council failed to perform the assessment within a reasonable timeframe and it was at fault for not keeping contact with Mrs X. The Council also made a flawed decision about what assets should be included as capital within the assessment. These faults caused Mrs X an injustice and so we have recommended a number of remedies which the Council has agreed. Wiltshire Council (20 013 714) Summary: Mrs B complained about the way the Council made a decision to move, her aunt, Miss C to a cheaper care home once her funds fell below the capital threshold. We have not found fault with the actions of the Council. Blackpool Borough Council (20 014 053) Summary: I have found no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it dealt with the financial charges for Mr X's domiciliary care package Devon County Council (20 014 255) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council's care provider, The Firs Residential Home, failed to look after her late mother (Mrs Y) properly, resulting in her catching COVID-19 from which she died, and failed to tell her family how ill she was. The Home's failure to properly look after Mrs Y put her at risk of harm. The Council needs to apologise and pay financial redress. Essex County Council (21 007 868) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council changing her domiciliary care agency. We are unlikely to find evidence indicating fault London Borough of Hounslow (20 014 542) Summary: Miss X complains about the Council's failure to safeguard her mother. She says the Council failed to act on referrals from the police, did not complete a mental capacity assessment properly, and failed to deal with her concerns about a social worker in a timely manner. We fault with the Council for failing to take appropriate action to safeguard her mother. We do not find fault with how the Council completed the mental capacity assessment or with its handling of the concerns about the social worker. We have made some recommendations. St. Matthews Limited (21 001 650) Summary: The fee increase clause in the Care Provider's contract was not in line with guidance from the Competition and Markets Authority and this caused uncertainty. The Care Provider will review and amend its contract. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 001 946) Summary: We stopped investigating this complaint which is about interpretation of charging regulations for adult social care because it was reasonable in this case for the complainant to seek a remedy by judicial review. Westminster City Council (21 005 566) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with her leaving care grant. This is because the Council has agreed to consider Ms X's complaint at stage 3 of the statutory children's complaints procedure. Bristol City Council (19 018 582) Summary: Miss H complains about what happened when her mother, Mrs D was discharged from hospital. We found no fault by the Trust or Council in the way Mrs D was discharged from hospital, or in how they communicated with Mrs D and her family about the discharge process. London Borough of Bromley (20 002 375) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to consider using its adult safeguarding powers and make enquiries under section 42 of the Care Act 2014 in relation to her mother, Mrs Y's problems with a tradesman in 2016/2017. Miss X also complained the Council refused to assess her mother's care and support needs or her own needs as her mother's carer. The Council was not at fault in determining Mrs Y was not an adult at risk in 2016/2017 and that her circumstances did not meet the threshold for safeguarding enquiries. However, the Council's failure to keep a detailed record of its discussion with Mrs Y regarding a care needs assessment and Mrs Y's decision she did not want an assessment or care and support amounts to fault. As does the Council's failure to carry out a carer's assessment for Miss X. This fault has caused Miss X and Mrs Y an injustice. Dartford Borough Council (20 006 849) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision to request repayment of a Disabled Facilities Grant paid to his late mother Mrs F after Mr X sold the property following her death. The Council was not at fault. It considered relevant law, guidance and the circumstances at the time when it decided it was appropriate to demand part repayment of the grant. The Council was at fault for the delays and failures in responding to Mr X's concerns. It agreed to apologise and pay him £100 for the frustration and time and trouble that caused him. Gloucestershire County Council (20 007 614) Summary: Miss B and Mrs C complain about the care their late grandmother Mrs P received in a council-funded care home and from district nurses. Failings in Mrs P's care by the Home and district nurses led to her developing severe pressures ulcers in the last weeks of her life. The Council did not investigate key issues in the complaint. The organisations should apologise and make a payment to Miss B and Mrs C to acknowledge the distress they suffered. The Council should also ensure the Home makes service improvements. Brighton & Hove City Council (21 008 124) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement in the revocation of the complainant's enduring power of attorney for his friend in 2009. The complaint is historic and lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late. There are not good grounds to exercise discretion to consider this matter now over ten years later. Guildford Borough Council (20 005 014) Summary: Ms X and Mr Y complain there was delay by the Council in flagging up poor workmanship funded by a Disabled Facilities Grant. Once the issues were logged the Council replaced the contractor and rectified the works. However, there was some delay by the Council in progressing this. The Council put some things right by organising various repairs to the property. Several issues remain outstanding which has added to Ms X's and Mr Y's distress, inconvenience and frustration. The Contractor is responsible for the poor workmanship. The contract for the building works is between Mr Y and the contractor. We have not looked at this as it is not within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. The Council will apologise, make financial payments and service improvements to remedy the injustice caused. London Borough of Sutton (20 005 203) Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about their dealings with the Council over a direct payment account for their disabled son. The complaint was closed because the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve anything worthwhile for Mr and Mrs X through further investigation of the matter. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (20 005 276) Summary: Mr C complained the Council forged his signature to force him out of his home, arranged care placements which provided him with poor quality care, charged him for services he either did not receive or which were badly delivered and overcharged him for his care. The Council delayed resolving an issue with Mr C's belongings and failed to ensure the care providers kept proper records. One of the homes also lost some of Mr C's belongings. There is no fault in the remainder of the complaint. An apology, liaison with both care providers to ensure case recordings are improved and a payment to Mr C and his representative are satisfactory remedy. Herefordshire Council (20 007 501) Summary: the Council was not at fault in the way it completed its calculation of Mrs X's contribution. The Council failed to carry out a review for several years but cancelled the backdated charges so Mrs X did not suffer injustice in consequence. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (20 013 694) Summary: Mr X complained that works to his home carried out under a Disabled Facilities Grant were of poor quality and led to problems in his home. Mr X would like the Council to remedy the outstanding issues. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council facilitated the works at Mr X's property or in the way it responded to his reports of defects and carried out remedial works. City of York Council (21 005 105) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the alleged misconduct by Council staff dealing with an issue raised by the complainant. This is because it is unlikely a further investigation would add to the Council's response. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 005 148) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint about care provided to her late uncle, Mr C. This is because further investigation could not add to the Care Provider's response. We could not provide a remedy to Mr C for any injustice caused by fault an investigation might uncover as he is now deceased. Worcestershire County Council (21 005 576) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about care provided to his late sister, Miss C. This is because we could not add to the Care Provider's response or make a different finding. London Borough of Bromley (20 009 693) Summary: Mr B complained that the Council recommended his mother, Mrs C, attend a day centre but did not explain that she would be required to pay for this. He says the Council also failed to complete a re-assessment of her needs. We found the Council was at fault in that it failed to send financial information to Mr B's address and delayed in completing a financial assessment. The Council acted appropriately by completing a telephone review in February 2020 but failed to respond to Mr B's request for a re-assessment in September 2020. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and make a payment. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (21 005 519) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with Mrs X's husband before he passed away. This is because she is not a suitable representative. 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