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. Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (19 020 490) Summary: Ms X complained the Council's Adult and Children's Services did not assist her between August and October 2019 despite her requests. Ms X says the Council did not check to see that her needs were being met. She says she had to pay privately to access services which should have been made available to her. We have found fault by the Council and the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X in recognition of the injustice identified. Staffordshire County Council (20 006 751) Summary: Mr C complained about the way the Council carried out a financial assessment for his (late) mother's residential care. Mr C said this resulted in distress to him. We found there was fault, for which the Council has agreed to apologise. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (20 009 009) Summary: The Council's failure properly to consider Mrs X's wish that her husband not provide her personal care in 2019 was fault. It was also fault for the Council not to give Mrs X an example of how her personal budget could be used to meet her needs when she asked for one. There is no fault in how the Council considered the impact of COVID-19 on Mr X's ability to care for Mrs X or in the time taken for the Council to deal with Mrs X's complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr and Mrs X and pay them £1150. Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (20 012 717) Summary: Mrs X complained a Care Provider should not have charged her mother for care when she left the care home because she had given notice at a meeting. She also complained staff shouted at her and bullied her. We found no fault in the Care Provider's actions. London Borough of Redbridge (20 013 470) Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to properly consider the impact of his medical conditions on his mobility before it refused his Blue Badge application. Mr X says the matter has affected his well‑being and caused him significant distress. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered and made its decisions. London Borough of Lewisham (21 001 950) Summary: the complainant Mr X complained about the poor service received from a Care Provider commissioned by the Council. The Council has shown it has quality assurance procedures in place. It followed up complaints but did not contact Mr X direct or consider if it should offer a remedy as the commissioner of the service. We found the Council acted with fault and it has agreed a remedy. Norfolk County Council (21 003 797) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint about the lack of help and support she has received as a Shared Lives Carer. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. Ridgeway Rise Care Limited (21 005 672) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the care home's visiting policy during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is because there is not enough evidence the care home's actions have caused Ms X or her mother significant personal injustice. Cheshire East Council (21 006 338) Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaint about the Council's failure to provide her sister, Ms D with support under the Care Act. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. West Sussex County Council (21 006 756) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision that the complainant is not entitled to a Blue Badge. This is because the Council has agreed to do a mobility assessment and there is nothing more we could achieve as an outcome. Leeds City Council (21 006 987) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about matters in the Council's records about the Council's dealings with Ms X. An investigation would be unlikely to be able to reach a clear enough view or achieve anything meaningful. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (20 009 045) Summary: Ms X complains the Council was at fault in the way it responded to her requests for information and access to see her mother, Mrs Y. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters so have completed our investigation. Devon County Council (20 013 274) Summary: Mr X complained the Council cancelled his home care package with Horizon Care (the care provider) without notice and did not investigate allegations the care provider made against him. I have found fault in the Council's actions. It cancelled Mr X's care package and did not attempt to source an alternative care provider to meet his eligible needs. It further failed to adequately investigate his complaint about the matter. The faults caused Mr X distress and uncertainty and meant he remains without care to meet his eligible care needs. The Council agreed to pay Mr X £950 to remedy that injustice and to carry out a reassessment of Mr X's care needs. Derby City Council (21 001 246) Summary: Miss X complains about the quality of care her late father received at Kiwi House Care Home, where the Council placed him. She also complains about the Council's handling of the charges for her father's care. The only fault has been to charge for the father's care after 20 November 2020, when it was clear he would not be returning to Kiwi House. The Council needs to waive any charges after that date. Caring Homes Healthcare Group Limited (21 005 683) Summary: I will not investigate this complaint regarding the Care Home's response time to their resident who had a serious medical issue. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Care Home to warrant investigation. Essex County Council (20 010 410) Summary: Mr C complained to us that the Council should have concluded, much earlier than it did, that his mother needed permanent residential care. He says this resulted in his mother having to contribute more towards the cost of her residential care during most of 2020. We did not find fault with the Council's actions. Kent County Council (20 012 990) Summary: Mr & Mrs X complain the Council has failed to meet their son's needs during the COVID-19 pandemic, leaving them to meet almost all his needs and their son paying for care he has not received. They also complain the Council failed to respond to their correspondence, putting them to significant time and trouble pursuing their concerns. The Council accepts it failed to respond to correspondence, wrongly advised them to continue paying for day services which were not supporting Mr Y, and failed to explain the reasons for its decisions. This caused avoidable distress and put them to considerable time and trouble in pursuing their concerns. The Council also failed to review Mr Y's needs, leaving doubt over whether there was more it could have done to meet them. The Council needs to review Mr Y's needs, apologise to the family and pay financial redress. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (21 001 710) Summary: Mrs F complained about the Council's handling of her Disabled Facilities Grant application. We have discontinued our investigation because the Council has agreed to do the works she asked for. Mrs F is happy with the Council's actions and our investigation cannot achieve anything further. Agincare Live-in Care (South East) Limited (21 006 883) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of Mrs C's Care Provider. This is because we are satisfied with the remedy offered by the Care Provider for the injustice caused to Mrs B and Mrs C. Further investigation could not make a finding of the kind Mrs B wants. London Borough of Waltham Forest (21 009 481) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of matters relating to letters sent by Mr X to his son. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council. East Anglia Care Homes Limited (19 021 200) Summary: Mrs A complains the care provider overcharged for additional care her mother received in a care home. The Ombudsman found fault by the care provider. It has agreed our remedy. London Borough of Ealing (20 012 616) Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council dealt with her concerns about her brother Mr Y's care needs and possible misuse of his finances. We found fault as the Council delayed carrying out a reassessment of Mr Y's care needs. We have recommended a suitable remedy for the time and trouble Ms X has been put to in pursuing her complaint. So, we have completed our investigation. Trafford Council (21 000 918) Summary: We stopped investigating Mr Y's complaint about interpretation of charging regulations for adult social care because it is reasonable for him to seek a remedy by judicial review. Essex County Council (20 006 606) Summary: Mr X and Mrs Z complained about the end of life care Mrs Y received in Alexandra House nursing home. They said this caused her to be thirsty, and in unnecessary pain. It also caused her distress, and the family depression and lack of sleep. We found the Care Provider was at fault. The Council has agreed to arrange an apology from the Care Provider and pay the family £400. Also, to provide us with evidence that the Care Provider has made the changes. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (20 007 786) Summary: Mrs X, on behalf of her son Mr Y, complained the supported accommodation commissioned by the Council did not meet Mr Y's needs. The failure to provide the support set out in Mr Y's care plan for the first few weeks of the placement amounts to fault. Newgate Lodge (EMI) Limited (20 008 156) Summary: Mr D complains about issues relating to his late father's care in Newgate Lodge, including during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Care Provider's actions did not cause injustice to Mr D or his father. Lancashire County Council (20 008 898) Summary: Mr B says the Council charged Mr C for care he did not receive and failed to get evidence from the care provider to support its charges. The care provider charged for periods when Mr C did not receive care and does not have the electronic records it should have to support its charging. The Council has acted appropriately by refunding the period when Mr C did not receive care. The Council will liaise with the care provider to arrange for spot checks on service user's files to ensure carers are electronically logging care visits. North Somerset Council (20 009 345) Summary: Miss Y complains about the Council's refusal to remove a through-floor lift that it fitted as part of a Disabled Facilities Grant for her son. She says her son no longer needs the lift. She says her son is afraid of the lift and the situation has negatively affected her and her son's mental health. The Ombudsman has decided to uphold Miss Y's complaint. This is because the Council failed to clearly respond in a timely manner to Miss Y's request for the removal of the through-lift. This caused Miss Y distress and confusion. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss Y, provide her with a clear timeframe by which it will make a decision about the removal of the lift and make a payment to her. The Council has also agreed to make a service improvement to provide clear guidance to staff on how to handle requests for removals of adaptations. Coventry City Council (20 014 051) Summary: Mr A complains the Council has commissioned a service that does not provide suitable autism support. Mr A complains this means he cannot access specialist support for his autism. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council for how it commissioned services. This is because there is no fault in how the Council made the decision to commission services. Suffolk County Council (21 000 060) Summary: We will not investigate Ms C's complaint about the Council's actions in connection with her deputy. This is because we could not add to the Council's response or make a different finding. Sunrise Senior Living Limited (21 000 762) Summary: Mr J complains the Care Provider failed to respond to his concerns raised about the medical condition of his late mother, Mrs G. He says management failings meant Mrs G did not receive the appropriate care she should have. We find fault by the care provider for not responding to Mr J's concerns, which caused him uncertainty and distress, but not in the manner it handled Mrs G's care. The Care Provider has already provided an apology, and has offered a further remedy. Nottingham City Council (21 006 339) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint about the Council's actions regarding her late father's, Mr C's, planning for discharge from hospital and failure to refer him for NHS Continuing Health Care (CHC) funding. This is because it is not an administrative function of the Council to award CHC funding. Mrs B can ask the NHS to consider a retrospective assessment for Mr C. The Court Care Group Ltd (21 006 653) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about matters that occurred at a care home. This is because, the substantive matter; the outcome of a Funded Nursing Care Assessment is an NHS responsibility. Therefore, another body is better placed to investigate the matter. Dorset Council (21 007 326) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to investigate a recent complaint made by Mr X concerning matters from 2018. This is because the events concerned happened too long ago to be investigated now. 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