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. Ferndale Care Home (21 001 135) Summary: the complainant Mrs X complained the Care Provider failed to give due notice of ending her father's care or of its concerns about his increasing care needs. The Care Provider said it acted in the client's best interests and arranged a meeting which the family did not attend. We found the Care Provider caused an injustice by failing to set out clear notice arrangements and through not raising its significant concerns. The Care Provider has agreed our remedy. Durham County Council (21 002 373) Summary: We upheld Mrs X's complaint about her late father's care in a council-funded care home. The failings in care were neglect. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment and take action described in this statement to minimise the risk of recurrence. West Sussex County Council (21 010 504) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's assessment to consider the suitability of temporary accommodation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the matter, or any significant injustice to the complainant remaining. Kent County Council (20 008 289) Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council provided information about Mr Y's care costs, and delays in the financial assessment. This meant Mrs X did not understand Mr Y would be charged for his respite stay and she was caused significant stress by an unexpected bill. We find the Council was at fault in the way it communicated with Mrs X, and in its failure to advise them of the cost of the care Mr Y received. We recommend the Council waive 50% of the cost of Mr Y's respite stay and ensure it communicates properly in future. It should also take action to ensure it completes financial assessments before arranging care services where possible. The Orders Of St. John Care Trust (20 011 250) Summary: The care provider did not adhere to the terms of its 2019 contract about the payment of Funded Nursing Care (FNC) awards. It agrees to apologise to Mr X and refund the relevant amounts for 2019-2020. It did adhere to the changed terms of contract in 2020 and no injustice was caused by its actions then. Lancashire County Council (20 013 556) Summary: The Council failed to deal with the charging for Mrs Y's care properly. It charged for more care hours than she received, gave inaccurate information about hourly care rates, and generated inaccurate invoices. It failed to properly investigate the discrepancies highlighted by Mrs X and failed to provide an adequate complaint response. Manchester City Council (21 000 592) Summary: the complainant complained the Council did not follow up his concerns about abuse and lack of care and support from the supported living care provider commissioned by the Council. The Council said it followed usual practice by passing the safeguarding referral to the agency providing support to Mr X. The Council recognises more could and should be done to check the quality-of-service Mr X received. I found the Council at fault, and it agreed to my remedy. London Borough of Croydon (21 000 750) Summary: Ms C complained that the care agency, commissioned by the Council, failed to carry out the last two visits to her mother before she passed away. Ms C says the care agency subsequently lied about this and falsified records to cover this up. I found there was fault, for which the Council has agreed to apologise. Worcestershire County Council (21 001 694) Summary: Ms C was unhappy about the way in which a telecare device, meant to safeguard her mother, worked in response to her mother leaving her property at 5am in the morning. We found fault with the way in which the Council informed Ms C about the features of the device, for which the Council has agreed to apologise. West Sussex County Council (21 003 416) Summary: Mrs X complains about a lack of communication from the Burlington Nursing Home, where the Council had placed her father, causing unnecessary distress, and a failure to recognise he was approaching the end of his life, which meant his family could not spend time with him before he died. Burlington has apologised for not contacting Mrs X after her father's death to pass on condolences. Based on the evidence seen so far, there is no evidence of fault which warrants a further remedy. Countrywide Care Homes (2) Limited (21 008 938) Summary: The care provider charged Ms X incorrectly for her care after Funded Nursing Care (FNC) was awarded. It has now acknowledged its error and I have discontinued this investigation as further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Hertfordshire County Council (21 010 730) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the failure to provide adequate care and support to the complainant and her family. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion and investigate. Essex County Council (21 000 411) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council overcharged his mother for the cost of her care between October 2018 and February 2019. This is because the complaint is late. North Yorkshire County Council (21 000 837) Summary: Miss X complains about the care provided to Mr Y on a residential respite stay. She says Mr Y was injured and the Care Provider failed to explain how this happened and did not tell family. It also failed to provide appropriate care to Mr Y. We find no fault in the care provided to Mr Y. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (19 019 459) Summary: Mrs D complained about flaws in her late mother, Mrs M's, discharge from hospital and the care she received in her own home. Both the Council and the Trust acted with fault, which have led to uncertainty and distress for Mrs D. The Council and Trust have accepted our recommendations, so we have completed our investigation. London Borough of Ealing (20 009 919) Summary: Miss C complained the Council delayed assessing her support needs and did not offer her support with housing and benefits. Miss C said this left her in financial difficulty and unable to access her home. We did not find fault with the Council. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (20 013 655) Summary: Mr C complained the Council did not properly respond to his request for a deferred payment agreement after his mother entered residential care. Mr C says he faced recovery action and spent unnecessary time and trouble trying to resolve the matter. We have found delay and poor communication by the Council but consider the agreed action of an apology and £300 provides a suitable remedy. Swindon Borough Council (21 000 649) Summary: Mr Y's care was not in line with expected standards. The Council will apologise to him and his mother Mrs X and make them a symbolic payment of £250 each. Hampshire County Council (21 001 720) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about needs and financial assessments. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation. Lancashire County Council (21 001 941) Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Miss X's complaint that the Council failed to safeguard her grandmother while she was in residential care. This is because further investigation could not make a finding of the kind Miss X wants. Buckinghamshire Council (21 003 002) Summary: Ms C complained the Council should not have reduced her care package from 22 to 16 hour. She said that, as a result, she does not have the amount of support she needs. We found fault with the way the Council considered Ms C's request for more time with regards to her hair care. The Council has agreed to increase her 16 hours of support by 10 minutes a week to accommodate this change to her care plan. Wiltshire Council (21 010 830) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a safeguarding investigation. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement and Mr X could take the legal matters to court. Cheshire East Council (21 012 781) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a missing ring. This is because an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome and establish what happened to the missing ring. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 000 914) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly assess his care needs and that his contributions to his care were too high. We find the Council was at fault for failing to record its decision not to increase Mr X's support hours. However, that did not cause Mr X an injustice. The Council has agreed to remind relevant staff to ensure any decision making is recorded within case records to stop the same problem affecting other people. London Borough of Wandsworth (21 009 922) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about a £130 carers arrangement fee. This is because the Council has already offered to waive this charge once the outstanding invoices for her mother's care are paid. This provides the outcome Ms X sought in complaining to this office and there is nothing further we would add. North Lincolnshire Council (21 010 224) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council moving Ms Y to a new care home or overpayment of fees. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (21 011 041) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Council assessing Mr X's mother's care needs. This is because any delays in the Council assessing Mrs Y did not cause an injustice. There is also no fault in the Council refusing to assist Mr X with his application to the Court of Protection. Dorset Council (20 008 725) Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of Mr and Mrs Y about the way the Council charged them. He said this caused them much worry and distress and asked the Council to waive the fees for Mrs Y. We found the Council was not at fault in the way it charged Mr and Mrs Y. However, we found it did not always send correspondence in large print and it has agreed to take action to improve this. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (20 011 489) Summary: Miss X complained on behalf of her mother, Mrs Y, about the way the Council assessed her needs and finances. She also complained about the way the Council dealt with her complaints about this. She said this had a significant impact on Mrs Y's health and wellbeing and her finances. We find the Council was at fault in some areas but dealt with this appropriately at the time, and there is no outstanding injustice. East Sussex County Council (20 014 020) Summary: Mrs B complains her son's care home, commissioned by the Council, did not facilitate regular visits to his family. She says the provider did not arrange a visit to his grandmother before she passed away despite the recommendation from a best interest meeting. The Ombudsman finds the Council and Home at fault for not making attempts to arrange a visit for Mr C to his grandmother and for not reviewing the contact arrangements following the best interest meeting. Athena Healthcare (Oxford Road) Limited (20 014 130) Summary: The Care Provider failed to keep adequate records of the care offered to Mr & Mrs Y during a residential respite stay. It also failed to deal with Mrs X's complaint about this in a timely manner. North East Lincolnshire Council (21 001 054) Summary: I have found no significant fault in how the Council completed a financial assessment for a contribution towards adult social care. Bedford Borough Council (21 001 563) Summary: The complainant Mrs X says the Council failed to tell her she would be charged a contribution toward her care costs following the end of the free period of reablement care commissioned by the Council. Mrs X also says the Council failed to act on her complaints about the quality of the service provided. The Council says it gave all relevant information indicating a contribution may be charged, and correctly conducted a financial assessment. The Council accepts it failed to take up the complaints on care quality. We found the Council acted with fault and it agreed to pay Mrs X £100 as a remedy. Suffolk County Council (21 005 799) Summary: This investigation is discontinued. Any further investigation by this office is unlikely to have a worthwhile outcome, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking. Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (21 006 905) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of accommodation provided by the Care Provider. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is unlikely an investigation would add anything to the Care Provider's response. Manchester City Council (21 007 476) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the Council's delay in completing a Care Needs Assessment for him. This is because further investigation by the Ombudsman could not add to the Council's response. We cannot investigate Mr B's complaint about the Mental Health Trust because complaints about the NHS are not within our jurisdiction. Cambridgeshire County Council (21 008 435) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to issue Mr X a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Grange Care Centre (Cheltenham) Limited (21 010 985) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint about her father's, Mr C's, missing iPad. This is because Mrs B can ask the insurers to consider a claim for the loss or, If the iPad was not insured, it would be reasonable for Mrs B to ask the court to consider whether his Care Provider is liable for the full cost of it. Trafford Council (21 010 890) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mr X's mother whilst she was in the Council's care. This is because it is a late complaint and there is no reason why he could not have complained sooner. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (20 004 940) Summary: Ms B complained on behalf of her father Mr X. She said the Council told her and the rest of the family there would be no charge when Mr X went into a nursing home. It was only after 15 months they received notification there was a charge. Ms B also complained about how the Council then responded to their complaints and questions. Ms B said they were put to time and trouble in having to pursue it with the Council. Also, the delay adversely affected Mr X's wife's financial position and the benefits she could claim. There was fault by the Council that caused injustice. Derbyshire County Council (21 008 698) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's alleged failure to provide suitable domiciliary care to Mrs Y, support Miss X as her carer, or carry out a safeguarding review. Some events complained about took place over 12 months ago and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate them now. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating the remaining part of the complaint. Brighton & Hove City Council (21 009 472) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way an advocacy firm represented Mr X's father's views. This is because the report was considered by the Court of Protection and we cannot investigate what happened in court. 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