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. London Borough of Croydon (21 000 838) Summary: The Council failed to review Mrs X's carers assessment. Plymouth City Council (21 006 480) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care provided to Mr X's neighbour. This is because Mr X does not have consent or standing to complain on behalf of his neighbour. Salford City Council (21 006 773) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the Councils failure to communicate effectively with him. This is because we are satisfied the Council has implemented additional processes to ensure concerns are dealt with more effectively in the future. There is no unremedied injustice warranting an Ombudsman investigation. London Borough of Havering (21 007 481) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response after the complainant reported that his sister, a Council employee, is subjecting him to domestic abuse. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Reading Borough Council (21 007 560) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled social care arrangements. Mr X complained about events that took place pre-2019. We cannot consider late complaints about matters which took place more than 12 months ago. There is no reason why Mr X could not have complained to us sooner. Lancashire County Council (21 007 728) Summary: Mr X complains about the behaviour of a family member's social worker. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. West Sussex County Council (21 007 752) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's decision to remove a discretionary property disregard as part of its financial assessment of her contributions towards the cost of care. This is because it would be reasonable for Mrs X to follow the process set out by the Council and request a reassessment. Avenues South (21 007 863) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a care home when Mr X's aunt passed away. This is because the care home has already provided a suitable remedy for the complaint and will not investigate. Torbay Council (21 007 974) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about evidence the Council provided to the Court of Protection. This is because the law does not allow us to investigate what happened in court. Hertfordshire County Council (21 006 295) Summary: Mrs B complained about the actions of the Council in respect of her late uncle, Mr C following a safeguarding investigation which led to him being moved into respite care where he died shortly afterwards. Mrs B says the Council's actions were wrong and damaging. The whole family has been caused significant distress and do not understand why the Council took the action that it did. We cannot find fault with the actions the Council took. Kent County Council (21 007 350) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to issue a Blue Badge. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council in the way it made its decision. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (21 007 491) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision that the complainant does not currently qualify for a disabled persons freedom pass. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. London Borough of Hillingdon (21 007 629) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council officer contacting the complainant's GP surgery with concerns she might have dementia. This is because we would be unable to add to the response already provided via the Council's investigation. Brighton & Hove City Council (21 007 715) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about safeguarding concerns. The alleged abuse and neglect started in 2017. We should not investigate complaints where the alleged fault took place over 12 months ago. Nottinghamshire County Council (20 006 041) Summary: We do not consider Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Clinical Commissioning Group acted with fault when it withdrew Mr U's night-time funding from a jointly funded care package with Nottinghamshire County Council. However, both organisations acted with fault handling Mr U's complaints. That caused him significant time and trouble which they should remedy with a financial payment and service improvements. Lincolnshire County Council (20 008 315) Summary: There is no evidence the Council properly considered the risk of falls before it reduced the number of Ms X's daily care visits. This is fault. There is no fault in how the Council assessed Ms X's finances. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £100, and review her care plan. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (20 010 029) Summary: Mr C complained about the way the Council assessed his mother's finances and its communications about its decisions. There was fault as the Council has not shown it properly considered Mr C's mother's individual circumstances and never provided a response to Mr C's questions. Staffordshire County Council (20 014 098) Summary: Mrs X complained that a care provider, acting for the Council, failed to look after her mother's belongings. We found there was fault that caused injustice and warranted a remedy. Bedford Borough Council (21 007 641) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's consideration of Miss X's Disability Related Expenditure. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Sunrise Senior Living Limited (21 001 071) Summary: Mrs R says Sunrise Senior Living wrongly refuses to return a 'community fee' paid by her mother, Mrs C. She says this caused injustice as the fee should have been refunded. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely that we would be able to provide Mrs C with a worthwhile outcome. Surrey County Council (21 002 607) Summary: The Ombudsman has decided not to investigate Mr X's complaint about how the need for equipment safety checks was communicated and managed during a national lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The provider has already acknowledged faults and apologised. Additionally, the faults did not cause any serious harm and the situation with safety checks has now been resolved. We are therefore unlikely to achieve more. Kent County Council (21 006 735) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how Ms X was treated when she was detained in hospital. It is late and some parts of the complaint are out of our jurisdiction. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (20 001 753) Summary: Mr Y was a vulnerable man who died during a hospital admission. We found fault on the part of two NHS Trusts concerning their failure to work together to identify Mr Y's family. This meant Mr Y's funeral proceeded without their knowledge. We also found fault by one Trust regarding the handling of a safeguarding referral for Mr Y. This fault caused Mr Y's brother, Mr X, significant distress. The NHS Trusts will apologise to Mr X and pay a financial remedy in recognition of the impact this fault had on him. These organisations, along with the Council, will review their policies and procedures to prevent similar problems occurring in future. Morris & Co (20 007 029) Summary: There was fault in the Home's calculation of its fees and in its communications about the fees. The Home has agreed to apologise to Mrs C, reimburse the amount that was overpaid and review its admission agreement. Nottinghamshire County Council (20 013 237) Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council assessed her mother Ms Y's care and support needs and about how it handled the financial assessment and Ms Y's financial contribution. There was no fault in the way the Council assessed Ms Y's care needs, in the support it identified she required or in the way it assessed her financial contribution. The Council was at fault for delays in notifying Ms Y of her contribution, for delays in responding to Ms X and for the way it recouped an overpayment which left Ms Y without sufficient funds to pay for her care. The Council has agreed to waive four weeks of Ms Y's contribution and make a payment to Ms X to acknowledge the distress and frustration caused. It has also agreed to review its processes to prevent a recurrence of the faults identified. Leicestershire County Council (20 014 116) Summary: Mrs F complains on behalf of her mother that the Council refused to allow her to live in her own home with carers, withdrew COVID-19 funding and is unfairly charging Mrs J for her care. We have found no fault. London Borough of Enfield (21 001 357) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has decided to pursue a debt for residential care that the complainants mother received. This is because the events happened too long ago and the issue of the complainants liability for the debt is a matter for the courts to decide. London Borough of Haringey (21 002 377) Summary: Mr X, on behalf of Ms Y, complains about the Council's decision that she was not eligible for care and support from August 2019. There is fault in how the Council made its decision that Ms Y was not eligible for care and support from August 2019. As a result, Ms Y did not receive a care package for 18 months longer than necessary which caused distress and financial loss as she had to purchase some care. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice. Leeds City Council (21 006 134) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to inform Mr & Mrs X that Mr X's mother had died. This is because the Council has already upheld the complaint, apologised, and offered a suitable remedy. There is nothing further an investigation by this office could add. Advinia Care Homes Limited (21 006 824) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care home fees. This is because we should not investigate late complaints. The fees cover a period in 2018-19. There is no good reason why Mrs X did not complain to us sooner. London Borough of Redbridge (21 006 996) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant's mother's eligibility for financial assistance prior to her discharge from hospital. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Surrey County Council (21 007 318) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has managed reviews of the complainants care needs. This is because the complaint is late and I see no reason why she could not have complained sooner and there is insufficient evidence of fault leading to an injustice. Salubre Limited (20 004 130) Summary: The Care Provider was at fault when it took photographs in Mr and Mrs B's home without their consent. This action has caused upset to Mr and Mrs B. The Care Provider has apologised and took action to prevent recurrence by speaking with its staff and issuing policy guidance about privacy issues. As well as the action it has taken, the Care Provider will take off £150 from the outstanding invoice, to recognise the upset, time and trouble its actions have caused Mr and Mrs B. London Borough of Havering (20 008 486) Summary: Mr D complained about the Council's handling of his wife's residential care arrangements. He said it wrongly terminated its agreement with the Care Home and failed to provide enough advice. He also said it failed to reimburse his payment on an incorrect invoice and caused delays in its complaints handling. As a result, Mr D said he experienced distress and a financial loss. The Council agreed it had wrongly brokered the agreement with the Care Home, sent an incorrect invoice and its complaints response was delayed. It apologised to Mr D and offered to reimburse the amount of the invoice he said he paid. We found the Council at fault. In addition to its proposed remedy, it also agreed to make payment to Mr D to acknowledge the uncertainty its errors caused. Nottinghamshire County Council (20 008 978) Summary: Mrs X complained about the residential care provided to her late father, Mr Y by M & M Care Limited. He received significant injuries and the family was given conflicting information. This caused them significant upset and distress and they would like to understand how this happened and ensure it does not happen to others. We find the Care Provider failed to follow Mr Y's care plan and this led to the significant injuries. We are satisfied sufficient action has been taken to prevent, as far as possible, this happening to others. Mrs Y and Mrs X do not want any financial remedy, so the Council has agreed to apologise and follow up when a safeguarding enquiry involves someone it placed. Shropshire Council (20 011 907) Summary: There was fault in discharge planning and poor communication which caused Ms X and Mr Y avoidable distress. The Council will apologise. Durham County Council (20 012 077) Summary: There were some failures in the care provider's care and treatment of Mr X which may have caused Mr X's weight loss and poor hygiene. The Council (which commissioned the care) has apologised where there were failings. To remedy the injustice arising from the commissioned care provider's failings, the Council agrees to offer Mr X a sum proportionate to the distress caused to him. Mr X has now left the home. Cornwall Council (20 013 157) Summary: There was no fault in the fact the Council did not review the complainant's care plan every six months. There was fault by the Council because it did not register letters the complainant sent asking for increased support, but this did not cause injustice because she had a care plan review shortly afterwards. We have discontinued our investigation of the complainant's remaining points because they are out of time, in some cases by a considerable margin. Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (20 014 024) Summary: The Council failed to adhere to the Care Act when responding to requests to assess Mr Y's care needs. It missed opportunities to determine Mr Y's wellbeing and failed to provide care at the point it was needed. Leeds City Council (21 001 264) Summary: The Council acknowledges there were failings in the care provided to Mrs Y. The Ombudsman has found fault in the way the Council dealt with concerns raised about Mrs Y. Hartlepool Borough Council (21 006 973) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the care provided to his son, Mr C in 2019. This is because further investigation could not add to the Council's response or make a different finding of the kind Mr B wants. Hertfordshire County Council (21 007 432) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about lack of assistance from the Council with his caring responsibilities. The complaint is late, and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to consider it now. Countryview (Warkton) Limited (21 007 880) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way Mr B was made to feel by a Care Provider. This is because there is no significant injustice and nothing to achieve from an Ombudsman investigation. Cheshire East Council (21 008 011) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to provide care records. It is reasonable for Ms Y to refer this matter to the Information Commissioner's office (ICO). Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (20 005 155) Summary: Mr D complains about the way his mother, Mrs E, was discharged from hospital, and that communication with him was poor. The Trust accepted its communication with Mr D about Mrs E's condition while she was in hospital was lacking, meaning he did not have all the relevant information. The Trust has apologised to Mr D and taken steps to improve communication. We did not find fault by the Trust or Council with regard to the other matters we investigated. 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