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 (20 003 686) Summary: Ms C complained the Council failed to provide her, and her son, Mr D appropriate services and act in accordance with both the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (21 003 796) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the standard of care provided to her mother because we cannot remedy any injustice she may have suffered. We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the care provider's communication with her as the matter is late, and if Ms X wishes to dispute the care provider's outstanding invoice she should put argue the matter in defence of its court action. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 006 974) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Council responding to Mrs X's husband when he had a fall at home. This is because the Council has already taken action to address the complaint and has also agreed to pay Mr and Mrs X £250 to acknowledge the distress caused. It is unlikely an investigation would result in a different outcome. Cornwall Council (20 006 346) Summary: Mr B acts as Mr C's deputy respect of finances. He complained that the Council failed to consult him when Mr C's residential care home changed to supported living accommodation and failed to respond to his requests for information. The Ombudsman finds the Council was not at fault in failing to consult Mr C, but it should have informed him about the change sooner. The Council responded to Mr C's request for information but failed to keep him informed about the delay in responding to his complaint. It has agreed to apologise for this. Cambridgeshire County Council (20 009 870) Summary: the Council delayed in reporting the findings of its safeguarding investigation to Mr X, and took too long to complete the investigation of his complaint. The Council has already offered a proportionate remedy to Mr X in respect of those delays. There is no evidence the safeguarding investigation itself was flawed. Any injustice to Mr X has already been remedied by the offer from the Council. Essex County Council (20 012 796) Summary: The Council was at fault when it failed to consider Mr X's requests on behalf of his sister, Ms S, for disability related expenditure. This caused Ms S an injustice because there is uncertainty over whether those requests should have been granted. The Council has agreed to reconsider these requests and provide Mr X with a decision on each one together with its reasons. Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (20 014 154) Summary: Mr X complained about the poor care his late father, Mr Y, received from Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited. The Care Provider was at fault as it failed to recognise Mr Y was seriously ill and did not take appropriate action. There were also errors in communication and record keeping and Mr Y's individual needs were not considered. The Care Provider has agreed to apologise and pay £300 to Mr X and the family to acknowledge the distress caused by the poor care Mr Y received. The Care Provider will also review staff knowledge and understanding in relation to the poor care which was delivered. HC-One Oval Limited (21 000 236) Summary: Mrs C complains on behalf of her mother, Mrs J, that the Care Provider did not share her mother's care plans between 2019 and 2021. She also says the lift at the Care Home was out of order meaning Mrs J missed a number of appointments about her hearing and she was unable to access social spaces and activities. We find fault with the Care Provider's poor recording of Mrs J's care plan reviews which caused her and Mrs C uncertainty. The lack of a working lift was service failure which caused Mrs J an injustice. Plymouth City Council (21 002 398) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to agree to reinstate the care package the complainant had previously. This because it would be reasonable to expect him to agree to the Council proceeding with the social care assessment process. Cambridgeshire County Council (19 015 379) Summary: there was very poor care and treatment by the Council's commissioned care provider HC One during the late Mr X's stay in the care home. The Council's safeguarding investigation found that HC One failed in multiple aspects of Mr X's care. The Council has reimbursed Mrs X's costs in recognition of the injustice caused. It will now offer Mrs X a further amount in recognition of the significant distress she suffered as a result of Mr X's poor care. Portsmouth City Council (21 007 368) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about missing possessions belonging to the complainant's deceased husband. This is because it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would lead to a different outcome. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (21 007 753) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the amount the Council said is outstanding for the complainant's father's care. This is because the injustice the complainant has suffered is not sufficient to justify our involvement. London Borough of Hillingdon (21 008 594) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care services provided by the Council. This is because Mr X does not have consent or standing to complain on behalf of those potentially affected. Milton Keynes Council (20 012 572) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to accurately charge Mrs Y for her home care and delayed in issuing refunds. The Care Provider, acting on behalf of the Council, was at fault for failing to tell it about a period when Mrs Y did not receive care. This caused Mrs Y unnecessary frustration. The Council also failed to invoice according to its schedule. This did not cause Mrs Y an injustice. The Council will apologise and remind its staff they must issue invoices in accordance with its schedule. Buckinghamshire Council (20 007 640) Summary: Ms X complained the Council wrongly initiated safeguarding proceedings against her and removed her from the home she was living in with her friend Ms Y. She said the Council's actions left her homeless and caused her distress. There was no fault in the Council's actions. Eastleigh Borough Council (20 013 579) Summary: The Council was at fault for the way it responded to Ms X's concerns about works carried out under a Disabled Facilities Grant. This caused Ms X to have to use a bathroom which was not suitable for her. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and make a payment for the distress caused. Brighton & Hove City Council (20 003 448) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's handling of his late wife's care. He said it failed to provide suitable overnight care and it wrongly withdrew the care it had arranged. As a result, Mr X said he and his wife experienced distress and uncertainty. We found the Council was at fault for the lack of clarity about what overnight care support Mrs Y would receive. On balance, it was also at fault for withdrawing the overnight care it had arranged. The Council agreed to apologise and make payment to Mr X to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty it caused him. As Mrs Y has sadly passed away, we cannot remedy the injustice she experienced. Cambridgeshire County Council (20 010 494) Summary: We did not uphold Ms X's complaint about her son Mr Y's care and support at a supported living placement. There was fault in the Council's complaint handling. The Council will apologise for the avoidable time and trouble to Ms X. Hartlepool Borough Council (20 010 526) Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council assessed Mrs X's support needs nor in the way it considered her request for an independent social worker. It responded appropriately to concerns about the level of care reported to it. Northamptonshire County Council (20 010 941) Summary: Mrs X and Miss P complained about the delay in making arrangements to assess and provide support to Mrs X. We have found the Council was at fault. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Miss P in recognition of the financial losses she incurred whilst providing care for Mrs X and review its practices. London Borough of Harrow (21 001 940) Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's refusal to investigate his concerns about the care received by his daughter, Ms Y and to share her social care records with him. We are discontinuing our investigation because the Information Commissioner is best placed to deal with Mr X's wish to see Ms Y's records. In addition, the Council's offer to engage with Ms Y's family to discuss their concerns about her care is a reasonable one for Mr X to pursue first to try and resolve the matter. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (21 002 407) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault causing a significant enough injustice to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. Durham County Council (21 004 928) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to charge the complainant for the cost of her care. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. Kent County Council (20 013 000) Summary: Mrs B says the Council delayed assessing her needs and then failed to assess her needs properly which meant she missed out on financial support for a period in a care home. There is no fault in the Council's assessment process and no evidence of unreasonable delay. Worcestershire County Council (21 001 299) Summary: Mr X complained about the outcome of the Council's safeguarding investigation into his father, Mr F's fall at Bluebrooke Nursing home (the care provider) which left him permanently disabled. We have discontinued this investigation. This is because Mr X has instructed solicitors to pursue legal action against the care provider which will consider matters raised in his complaint. My the Orchards Ltd (21 002 297) Summary: Mr X complained about the care his late father, Mr F, received at Willow Tree House care home, part of My the Orchards Limited (the Care Provider). I discontinued this investigation because the Coroner had already considered the mater and further investigation by us was unlikely to lead to a different outcome. Lincolnshire County Council (21 006 379) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision to charge his mother, a one off care arrangement fee for her self-funded domiciliary care package. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council. North Somerset Council (21 006 777) Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly calculated the late Mrs Y's assets leaving the family with care fees to pay. We will not investigate this complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement. North Somerset Council (21 007 059) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint, made on behalf of Miss Y, about the Council's safeguarding investigation into serious injuries to Miss Y while in her care home placement. There is not enough evidence of fault in the process officers followed to warrant us investigating. We could not add anything to the Council's safeguarding report. We also cannot achieve the outcomes Mrs X seeks from her complaint. Nottinghamshire County Council (21 007 186) Summary: We will not investigate Mr C's late complaint about the Council's actions in 2018. This is because Mr C could have come to us before now if he was concerned his stepfather, Mr D was living in unsuitable accommodation. North East Lincolnshire Council (21 007 876) Summary: We will not investigate Ms M's complaint. Her complaints about North East Lincolnshire Council's safeguarding procedures and Bradley House Care Home and North East Lincolnshire Clinical Commissioning Group's support for her mother are late. Leeds City Council (20 014 094) Summary: Mrs X complained about the actions taken by Seacroft Grange Care Village to protect her mother, Mrs M, during the COVID-19 pandemic and the actions and care prior to her death. I have not reinvestigated most of Mrs X's complaints because the Council carried out a robust and thorough investigation which identified some areas of fault, and I could achieve nothing further. However, the Council should provide evidence the Care Home has carried out the recommendations it made. Where I have investigated, there was no fault. Lancashire County Council (21 005 002) Summary: The Ombudsmen will not investigate a complaint about the way a care home requested a repeat prescription or prevented access to the home for a planned advocacy visit. This is because there is no evidence of significant injustice to the resident, and the injustice to their family has already been remedied. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (20 004 550) Summary: Mrs A complains about a council and care home relating to the care and treatment provided to her mother in 2020. We found fault in fluid management recording and in staff not seeking emergency treatment earlier. The Home has taken appropriate action to address these issues in its care of other residents, but we have recommended it apologises for the uncertainty caused to Mrs B for the delay in seeking emergency treatment. 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