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. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 000 192) Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's actions in relation to a disabled facilities grant. She says the Council removed her and her children's needs from the DFG application. She also says the Council delayed in completing the home adaptations. We find fault with the Council for delays in progressing the adaptation works. We have made recommendations. Apex Prime Care Ltd (21 002 668) Summary: Mr F complained Apex Prime Care Ltd failed to provide the agreed domiciliary care for Mrs X, and the care it did provide was not to a suitable standard. As a result, he said she experienced distress and lived in unhygienic conditions. He also said he experienced distress when he found out about the standard of care it provided her. We found the Care Provider at fault as it failed to provide all the care set out in its agreement with Mr F. This caused Mr F distress and uncertainty. It may also have caused Mrs X an injustice, but we cannot remedy the injustice for someone who has since died. The Care Provider has agreed to apologise and make payment to Mr F to acknowledge the distress it caused. Lancashire County Council (21 003 290) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly assess his care needs leaving him without care and support. The Council was not at fault. It has identified Mr X has eligible care needs but Mr X has chosen not to accept support at the current time. It is open to Mr X to contact the Council if he wants it to arrange care and support for him. Gracewell Healthcare 3 Limited (21 011 369) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care provided to the complainant's mother. 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 we could add anything to the response the complainant has already received or that we would recommend a different remedy. Essex County Council (21 011 371) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council disregarded its duty under section 18 (4) of the Care Act 2014 to arrange care for the complainant's mother. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's decision-making process to justify investigating. Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (21 011 579) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Lancashire County Council (21 011 662) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint about her son's, Mr C's, Direct Payments. This is because it is unlikely we will find enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. Leeds City Council (20 012 424) Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council wrongly considers Mr Y's direct payment account is in arrears. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision that Mr Y has arrears on his direct payment account and owes £11069.63 to the Council. Rushcliffe Care Ltd (21 002 808) Summary: Mrs X complains about the failure of a care home to administer her mother's medication correctly. There was fault which warrants a remedy. Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (21 004 132) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council sent her letters about her mother's care home fees to the wrong address, so she received an unexpected invoice for a shortfall of fees. We found fault because the Council sent the letters to the wrong address. But this fault did not cause Mrs X an injustice and so we have completed our investigation. Lancashire County Council (21 005 121) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's failure to provide the appropriate care package when she was discharged from hospital. As a result, she says she was denied a period of free reablement care. The Council has accepted there was some fault with communication and agreed to waive the care costs Mrs X was asked to pay. We consider this to be an appropriate remedy and any further investigation by us would not result in a substantially different outcome for Mrs X. The Council has also agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X for the distress caused. Plymouth City Council (21 007 035) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision that Mr X's relative has capacity to make decisions about their welfare and finances. This is because Mr X can take the matter to court and it would be reasonable to expect him to do so. South Gloucestershire Council (21 007 680) Summary: We will not investigate Mr C's complaint that a specialist chair caused his wife, Mrs C, pressure sores. This is because an investigation would most likely not conclude the specialist chair solely caused the pressure sores. London Borough of Haringey (21 010 104) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to pay a Care Home owner for the residential care provided to one of its residents. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. East Sussex County Council (21 010 327) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an Occupational Therapist (OT)'s actions in the process of determining a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) for the complainant's son. This is because we are unlikely to find fault in the OT's actions. Any admitted fault in the matter of delay did not cause any significant injustice to the complainant. Buckinghamshire Council (21 011 275) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with Mr X's partner before she died. This is because he is not a suitable person to bring a complaint and if he is unhappy the Council wont's share information with him he can complain to the Information Commissioner's Office. Telford & Wrekin Council (21 011 537) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the Council's actions regarding his daughter's, Ms C's placement. This is because further investigation by the Ombudsman could not achieve a different response to that already provided to Mr B. Norfolk County Council (21 011 801) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care fees. Mrs X complains about events that took place more than 12 months ago. We should not consider late complaints. It was reasonable to expect Mrs X to complain to us sooner. East Sussex County Council (20 006 064) Summary: Mrs Y complained about the way the Council dealt with Mr X's direct payments, and its complaints handling. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council, causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising, making payments to reflect distress, time and trouble, and contacting Mrs Y to address any outstanding concerns about the direct payment account. London Borough of Newham (21 001 774) Summary: Mr X complained the Council discriminated against him by failing to correspond and provide documentation, including his care plan, in large print. Mr X also complains the Council has failed to provide appropriate care under an interim care plan. He states the Council's actions left him with no option but to stop using Council arranged carers, and he has incurred costs in safeguarding himself from carers. The Council's failure to take account of its duties under the Equality Act and correspond with Mr X in large text from the outset is fault and has caused Mr X an injustice. However, there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council has assessed Mr X's care needs or investigated his concerns about the care provided or the actions of carers. North Yorkshire County Council (21 002 301) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions when it carried out a safeguarding investigation. This is because it is a late complaint and there are not good reasons to consider it now. London Borough of Bexley (21 002 417) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide support to meet his needs and support him to move house. We have discontinued our investigation because we cannot achieve an outcome Mr X wants and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Health & Care Services (NW) Limited (21 002 603) Summary: Mrs X complains about the Care Provider's treatment of her late husband, Mr Y's, funded nursing care payments. Mrs X says this caused Mr Y a financial loss and caused her additional upset and distress while grieving for him. We find the Care Provider at fault in the way it dealt with Mrs X's complaint and in its contract which was unclear. The Care Provider has agreed to pay Mrs X £450 for the stress and uncertainty it caused. It has also agreed to review its complaints handling, and to make sure its contract is clear. Trafford Council (21 004 594) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to assess his relative's needs and delayed agreeing funding for her long-term residential care placement. There was no fault in the way the Council supported her hospital discharge. The Council failed to properly explain the financial assessment process, residential care funding and top ups and failed to keep proper records of conversations with relatives. The Council has already apologised to the family for this. It has agreed to take action to prevent a recurrence of the faults. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (20 013 687) Summary: it was not fault for the Council-commissioned care home not to inform Mrs X when her mother had a fall in the shower because her mother had capacity at the time and did not sustain any injuries or need medical attention. We have not upheld Mrs X's complaint that her mother's mobility deteriorated during her temporary respite stay because care home staff did not give her sufficient support and encouragement to mobilise. North Yorkshire County Council (21 000 357) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly plan for her daughter, F's, transition from children to adult care services. The Council was at fault. It did not properly plan for F's transition and failed to issue her amended Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan naming a post-18 placement in line with statutory timescales. The Council agreed to apologise and pay Mrs X a total of £600 to remedy distress, uncertainty and time and trouble caused. It also agreed to review F's EHC Plan without delay in preparation for naming her post-18 placement in time for the 2022/23 academic year. Plymouth City Council (21 003 433) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions during a period in 2020 when Mr B was providing care to his aunt, Ms C. This is because further investigation could not add to the Council's response or make a finding of the kind Mr B wants. Warwickshire County Council (21 004 477) Summary: Mrs D complains on behalf of her late husband (Mr P) about the care he received while in residential care. We found the Council failed to provide a care placement for Mr P which was suitable for his needs. I also consider there were failings by the care home to promptly identify on one occasion that Mr P required medical treatment. There were also delays by the Council in arranging an alternative care placement for Mr P and a failure to properly communicate with Mrs D on this and other issues. These failings caused Mrs D an injustice and so we have recommended a remedy. Lancashire County Council (21 005 849) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the Council's decision not to provide him with care and support. This is because it is unlikely there is enough evidence of fault to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. Southampton City Council (21 009 865) Summary: The Ombudsmen will not investigate this complaint about a decision to detain someone under the Mental Health Act. The actions of the doctors involved in the assessment are outside of PHSO's remit. LGSCO could consider the assessment an Approved Mental Health Professional completed but an investigation is unlikely to find significant failings in the process they followed. London Borough of Croydon (21 010 776) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council carried out a safeguarding investigation. This is because any fault by the Council has not caused Mr X or his neighbour an injustice. Agincare Live In Care Services Limited (21 011 030) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the care provider's decision to cancel a two-week respite care package he had booked for his mother. This is because there is no sign of fault by the care provider as it gave more than the required amount of notice when it cancelled. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (20 005 623) Summary: Ms K complained about the care her mother received at the care home and the Council's safeguarding enquiry into the concerns she raised. There was fault in the care provided and the Council's communications and enquiries into the first safeguarding referral. The Council has agreed to apologise and to pay £250. London Borough of Hackney (21 009 181) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions in relation to Miss X's care plan. The Council has agreed to remedy the avoidable injustice experienced by Miss X. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. West Sussex County Council (21 009 816) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has taken too long to deal with a disputed invoice. This is because it is unlikely we could now add significantly more to the Council's investigation or achieve a different outcome for the complainant. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (21 010 143) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint about the way she was treated by her Care Provider. This is because we are satisfied with the remedy provided. North Yorkshire County Council (21 010 739) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the misuse of direct payments. This is because the Council actions have not caused Miss X a significant injustice. London Borough of Lewisham (21 010 747) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a safeguarding meeting. This is because the provider has already acknowledged fault and apologised and it unlikely an investigation would result in a different outcome. Caring Homes Healthcare Group Limited (21 010 775) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of care provided during a one-week residential respite stay. This is because the Care Provider has already provided a suitable remedy and there is nothing further we could achieve. London Borough of Croydon (21 011 282) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement with the complainant's family. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. Part of the complaint is late, we cannot investigate complaints linked to legal proceedings, and some of the complaint is best dealt with by the Police. Mayfair Homecare Limited (21 011 306) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Care Provider invoiced the family for care charges for Miss X's uncle. This is because the Care Provider has apologised and so it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome. London Borough of Croydon (21 011 381) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care received by Mr X or how Ms Y was treated. This is because it is a late complaint and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to accept it now. Surrey County Council (20 011 594) Summary: The complainant, acting on behalf of her late father, has raised several issues with the standards of care he was provided during his stay in a nursing home, which was commissioned jointly by the Council and by the NHS. We have found fault, which in some cases caused an injustice, and the Council and Care Provider have agreed to remedy this injustice and work to prevent a recurrence. Kent County Council (21 009 298) Summary: Mrs Y says care failings contributed to her son's death. We will not investigate. This is because we are unlikely to add anything more to the investigation already carried out by the care home and unlikely to achieve the outcome wanted. Dorset Council (21 004 083) Summary: Mrs F has complained about her mother's treatment by a Trust and the handling of her discharge from hospital by the Trust and a Council. I will not investigate this complaint as it is late. 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