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. Northumberland County Council (20 001 819) Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to consider holiday travel and accommodation costs for a carer as a disability-related expense. He says this caused him an injustice because he was concerned he may not be able to go on holiday. Medincharm Limited (19 014 360) Summary: There was fault in the Home's recording of Mrs C's medication requirements. There was poor record keeping in relation to the initial falls risk assessments and care plans and the Home failed to respond to Mrs B's complaint. The Home has agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy to reflect the distress caused by the fault. Middlesbrough Borough Council (20 010 090) Summary: Mr & Mrs D complain about the Council's decision not to award a Disabled Facilities Grant to fund a loft conversion. We have found no fault by the Council. Kent County Council (21 004 783) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to charge the complainant's daughter a contribution towards the cost of her care. This is because it is unlikely we would find a significant injustice has been caused. It is also unlikely we would find fault with the way the level of contribution has been calculated. Trafford Council (21 006 945) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an application for a Blue Badge because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council. Leeds City Council (21 007 005) Summary: The Ombudsmen have decided not to investigate Mr X's complaint about a decision to discharge his mother from hospital into a care home. This is because there are no indications of fault by the Council or the NHS Trust. At the time, measures were in place due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the decisions appear to have been in line with government guidance. Wychavon District Council (20 008 551) Summary: Mr X complained about poor quality workmanship and delays during building work and adaptations to his home, funded by a Disabled Facilities Grant. The Council was at fault. There was poor workmanship which, along with delays, caused Mr X considerable inconvenience and distress. The Council accepted it was at fault and has already acted to complete the work to the required standard. It proposed a remedy payment to Mr X of £350 in recognition of the distress caused. This is an appropriate amount and it will now offer this to Mr X. It has also agreed to take action to improve its services to prevent future injustice to others. London Borough of Bexley (20 011 149) Summary: Mrs X, complains the Council's care provider, Westminster Homecare Limited (Bexley), failed to meet her parents needs properly, putting them at risk of harm, and one of its Care Workers stole over £56,000 from them. The Care Provider did not meet all the parents, care needs and put them at further risk of harm by failing to use the right personal protective equipment. The Council needs to apologise, pay financial redress and refund any money the parents have been overcharged for their care. London Borough of Haringey (20 012 872) Summary: The Council made every attempt to provide proper care for Mr X, but the family refused the measures it sought to put in place. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (21 001 142) Summary: There was fault by the Council which commissioned the late Mrs Y's care in a care home. The fault included failings in nutritional care and in infection control measures during an outbreak of COVID-19. There were also serious failings in complaint handling. To put matters right, the Council will apologise, make Mrs X a symbolic payment, carry out a quality monitoring visit and review its complaint handling procedures. Horizon Care (Waterside Grange) Limited (21 005 277) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the late Mrs C's Care Provider. This is because Mrs C has since passed away, and there is no significant injustice warranting an Ombudsman investigation. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (21 006 004) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint about the Council's delay in reviewing her mother's, Mrs D's, care needs. This is because further investigation could not add to the Council's response or make a finding of the kind Mrs B wants. London Borough of Waltham Forest (21 007 257) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision that the complainant is not eligible for a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. North Yorkshire County Council (20 011 880) Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not explain or provide sufficient information about her stepmother, Mrs D's respite care home fees or the extension of her stay. We find fault with the Council as it did not provide clear information about care contributions or follow up significant conversations in writing. Mr B and Mrs D have suffered an injustice and the Council has agreed to apologise and pay £150 for the confusion caused. Rectory Care Limited (20 012 446) Summary: Mrs X complains the Care Provider did not properly care for her father, Mr Y, causing distress. We find no fault by the Care Provider. Worcestershire County Council (20 013 303) Summary: We do not consider Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust acted with fault when it assessed Miss X's mental capacity. Also, when it discharged her to a Nursing Home it did so in her best interests. Richmond Care Villages Holdings Limited (20 013 871) Summary: Miss X complains about the quality of services her grandparents received at Richmond Village Letcombe Regis (the Care Home) and the visiting arrangements. The Care Provider accepts the quality of services was poor. It needs to take action to remedy the injustice this caused to her grandparents and to Miss X, and to deliver sustained improvements at the Care Home. Cheshire West & Chester Council (21 000 605) Summary: Mr X complains the Council incorrectly told him his daughter could not have a support bubble with her family on 13 June 2020, and did not correct its error until 3 September 2020. The Council made a mistake and should have apologised when it realised this. It now needs to apologise to the family and pay financial redress for the distress caused to Mr X's daughter and time and trouble it has put him to in pursuing the complaint. London Borough of Newham (21 002 670) Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mr B's complaint that the Council refused him a disabled parking badge. The Council has now issued him a badge, so he is no longer suffering any injustice. Sheffield City Council (21 003 227) Summary: The Ombudsmen will not investigate this complaint relating to the treatment of a person who lacked the capacity to make decisions about their own care. The complaint relates to matters that occurred more than 12 months ago and, as such, are late for our consideration. Bedford Borough Council (21 006 882) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's inaccurate charging of care support costs for Mr X. This is because the Council has already acknowledged incorrect invoices were sent out to him and it has taken action to resolve the overcharging. London Borough of Wandsworth (20 003 953) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision to reduce his support plan and disputed the amount he was asked to pay. We do not find the Council acted with fault in respect of either matter. Cornwall Council (20 006 368) Summary: Mrs X complains that her mother was neglected in a care home. She says this caused her mother to become malnourished, dehydrated resulting in an acute kidney injury, and depressed. Mrs X also complains that the Care Provider did not respond appropriately when she complained. The Ombudsman finds fault causing injustice to Mrs X and her mother. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make a payment to reflect the injustice caused. The Council has also agreed to make improvements to its service and the Care Provider's service. Hexon Limited (20 006 642) Summary: Ms X complained the Care Provider, Sabrina Healthcare, asked her aunt Ms Y to leave its residential home because of comments she made on social media. She also complained the Care Provider refused to let her contact Ms Y and did not tell her important information about Ms Y's health. Ms X said this situation caused her emotional distress. The Care Provider was at fault when it served notice on Ms Y and restricted her contact with Ms X without following its own complaints policy or contractual terms and conditions. This fault did not cause a significant injustice to Ms X or Ms Y, as it later said Ms Y could stay at the home. There was no other fault found in the Care Provider's actions. Worcestershire County Council (20 012 649) Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to provide an adequate service regarding her mother's care fees. We find the Council was at fault for the way it dealt with the care fees and for its communication with Mrs B. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. London Borough of Havering (20 013 427) Summary: the complainant, Mrs X, complained the Council failed to properly conduct a safeguarding enquiry into concerns raised about her mother's care in a care home. The Council says it followed protocol and considered all information shared. We found the Council at fault for delays causing avoidable distress and inconvenience. The Council has agreed to our remedy. North East Lincolnshire Council (20 014 305) Summary: Mrs X complained about the care provided to her late father by the Council commissioned care home. The care home was at fault. It failed to follow procedures and to complete accurate records. It failed to ensure Mr Y was offered sufficient food and fluid and care. As a result of a complaint investigation and safeguarding enquiry the care home has taken suitable action to prevent a recurrence of the faults. In addition, the Council has agreed to waive the £85 owed by Mr Y's estate, apologise to Mrs X and pay her £150 to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty caused to her by the faults. London Borough of Wandsworth (20 009 339) Summary: Miss X complained the Council continued to arrange an expensive care package that was neither wanted nor needed by her. The Council also failed to ensure she was represented at a meeting where this matter was discussed. We do not find fault with the Council's actions in this matter. Essex County Council (20 013 722) Summary: Mr X complained that the Council did not apply the full 12 week property disregard to Mrs Y's financial assessment and did not provide enough information. He also complained that it did not agree to arrange a council contract with the care home. He says this was stressful for the family and would like the Council to apply the disregard in full and backdate a contract. The Council has now agreed to apply the disregard in full and this will remedy any injustice. London Borough of Brent (20 014 335) Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council calculated Mrs Y's contribution to her care costs and the way it dealt with his complaint about this. He said it increased Mrs Y's costs "astronomically" and "out of the blue". This caused the family much anxiety. We find the Council was not at fault in the way it calculated Mrs Y's contribution, but it was at fault in the way it dealt with his complaint. The Council has already apologised and offered a suitable remedy. Liverpool City Council (21 005 640) Summary: We will not investigate the complaint about the quality of care provided to Miss X's late father. This is because it is unlikely that we could add to previous investigations, and we could not achieve the requested outcome. Surrey County Council (21 005 736) Summary: Mr X complains the Council has refused to backdate his care payments following a review of his care needs. Mr X says this has caused him to miss out on care payments that he should have received. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for not appropriately considering whether to backdate care payments following a review of his care. This has caused Mr X further distress and delay in resolving his initial complaint. Yourlife Management Services Limited (21 006 139) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs C's complaint about the actions of her mother's, Mrs F's Care Provider. This is because the Care Provider has apologised for its actions and advised it will not happen again. We are satisfied the injustice has been remedied. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 006 427) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to apply for Attendance Allowance for his late mother, Mrs C, in 2005/6. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. North Yorkshire County Council (20 008 766) Summary: Mr X complained the Council should not have approved a disabled facilities grant for adaptations for his home in 2012. He said the Council's actions have had a negative effect on his son Y's mental health and limited his physical development. There was no fault in the Council's actions relating to its approval of the grant. There was fault in the Council's complaint handling; it failed to respond to Mr X's complaint within the required timescales. Mr X did not suffer a significant injustice due to this fault. 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