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. Nottinghamshire County Council (20 012 341) Summary: Miss A complains the Council did not properly manage her grandmother's care. The Council did not follow its complaints process because it did not fully respond to Miss A's complaint. This did not cause Miss A any injustice. Birmingham City Council (20 012 901) Summary: Mr B complained the Trust and the Council delayed his late mother's discharge from hospital and kept her in hospital against her will on two occasions in December 2019. Mr B said as a result his mother, Mrs C, contracted a hospital acquired infection and this contributed to her untimely death. We found no fault in the way the Trust dealt with Mrs C's first discharge from hospital. We found fault in the way the Trust and the Council dealt with Mrs C's second discharge, and this meant she remained in hospital for longer than she wanted. The faults caused avoidable distress and frustration to both Mrs C and Mr B. However, we cannot link the claimed injustice to the fault identified. To put things right the Trust and the Council have agreed to our recommendations and will improve their practice in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005, apologise to Mr B and make an acknowledgement payment. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (21 011 637) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how Mr Y was treated in a care home. This because it is a late complaint and there are no good reasons for us to exercise our discretion to investigate. Cheshire West & Chester Council (21 003 598) Summary: Miss X complained the Council incorrectly charged her for care that she understood would be free. The Council was at fault for failing to provide financial information to Miss X about her package of care when she left hospital. That meant she could not make an informed decision about the care she agreed to receive. The Council also delayed in responding to Miss X about her charging query and delayed in reviewing her care needs. That caused Miss X avoidable distress and uncertainty and meant she paid for an increased package of care longer than necessary. The Council has agreed not to charge Miss X for the additional visits it put in place and apologise for any avoidable distress caused. Peterborough City Council (21 004 264) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's demand for Mr and Mrs X to repay direct payment monies for their daughter. This is because the Council cancelled its demand on receipt of the family's explanations for why the money had been used. Therefore the family have not been caused a significant injustice as a result of the Council's actions. London Borough of Redbridge (21 007 811) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the funding for a care package for the complainant's deceased mother. This is because there is nothing further that we could add to the previous response by the Council. London Borough of Wandsworth (21 011 922) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with the complainant's husband before he passed away and its refusal to provide additional information to her. That is because we could not add to what the Council has said in its responses to her. Staffordshire County Council (21 012 016) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with concerns that Mrs Y's family had raised about her care. This is because Mrs Y has not consented to her family complaining to the Ombudsman on her behalf. Hampshire County Council (21 012 133) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council decision regarding a Shared Lives Carer service user. The Council made the decision in 2017 and the complainant could have complained to us sooner. This as a late complaint. The ExtraCare Charitable Trust (20 006 329) Summary: The care provider failed to take action which could have prevented Mrs M from sustaining an injury to her leg, and then following the incident, it failed to take a witness statement from Mrs M. It also failed to contact Mrs M's GP after it said it would and failed to properly follow its procedures in relation to personal protective equipment, moving and handling and complaints. The care provider has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs D and take action to prevent similar failings in future. London Borough of Newham (21 004 770) Summary: Ms T complains the Council refused her application for a freedom pass when she moved into the Council's area, despite having been granted a pass by her previous Council. We do not find fault in the actions of the Council. It is entitled to make its own policy for assessing eligibility for freedom passes based on the national guidance, which it has done so. 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