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. Gloucestershire County Council (20 007 589) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council assessed her need for adaptations to her home. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault with the actions of the Council. London Borough of Islington (20 011 497) Summary: Ms Y complained the Council mismanaged her finances when acting as her appointee. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising, making payments for financial loss and to reflect inconvenience and distress, and service improvements. Bath and North East Somerset Council (21 001 524) Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her mother, Mrs Y, about the Council's decision to refuse to accept a deferred payment agreement for the cost of Mrs Y's care, using her home as security. The Ombudsman did not find fault in the Council's decision-making. Leicestershire County Council (21 002 153) Summary: Mrs Y complains about the failure of a care provider to ensure a sore on her mother's leg was appropriately cleaned, dressed and treated. We find fault because there is no evidence to show the care provider properly assessed the sore or sought medical help. This fault creates distress and uncertainty for Mrs Y which the Council will remedy with an apology, a payment of £300 and some procedural improvements. Castel Froma Neuro Care Limited (21 009 743) Summary: We shall not investigate this complaint about how the Care Provider looked after the late Mrs X and dealt with the complainants. This is because we cannot now achieve anything for Mrs X and because the complaint is late. London Borough of Camden (21 010 988) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council helping Ms X clear her flat to make room for a ramp installation. This is because we cannot add to the previous investigation by the Council or achieve the outcome Ms X wants. Norfolk County Council (21 012 512) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms B's complaint about where her mother, Mrs D should live. This is because the matters are currently before a court. The Ombudsman cannot consider matters which are before a court. Lincolnshire County Council (21 012 785) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to retrospectively backdate Ms B's Disability Related Expenditure (DRE) assessment to 2016. This is because Ms B's father, Mr C, could have complained to us before now if he was unhappy with Ms B's DRE assessment. Birmingham City Council (20 003 987) Summary: The Council delayed dealing with Ms B's complaints about its actions to safeguard and support her sister and delayed or failed to respond to some of her communications on these points. The Council failed to acknowledge Ms B's concerns about documents missing in the post, and to refer the potential breach of personal data to the relevant department. We found no fault in the Council's safeguarding enquiries, or professional decisions it took. To acknowledge the impact of its failures in service the Council will apologise and refer the missing document to the relevant department. London Borough of Croydon (21 000 045) Summary: Ms D complains on behalf of her adult son, Mr F about the way the Council dealt with his transition from children's services to adults' services in 2020. The Council has accepted there were delays in assessment; these caused injustice to Ms D and Mr F which warrants a financial remedy. There was no fault in the care and support assessments and plans. Fault in complaint handling caused time and trouble for Ms D. Kiwi House Care Home Limited (21 004 041) Summary: Mrs X complains Kiwi House Care Home failed to look after her mother-in-law (Mrs Y) properly, resulting in her mobility declining. Kiwi House was not responsible for the decline in Mrs Y's mobility. Nevertheless, it needs to apologise for failings in its record keeping and take action to improve it. Shropshire Council (21 005 617) Summary: There was fault by the Council. It failed to get an independent valuation of Mrs Y's interest in a property as part of a financial assessment for her care home costs. This was a failure to act in line with Annex B of Care and Support and Statutory Guidance. The Council will apologise, make Mrs Y's representatives a symbolic payment and arrange an independent valuation with the Valuation Office Agency. Care UK Community Partnerships Limited (21 009 571) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about issues relating to his mother's two week long respite stay at the Care Provider's care home. This is because the Care Provider has already offered a suitable remedy for the issues raised in the complaint and there is nothing further we would add or recommend. Birmingham City Council (21 011 643) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to pay Mr and Mrs B for care they provided to their daughter, Ms C, throughout lockdown. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (21 012 568) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to disregard compensation Mrs X received when carrying out a financial assessment for her care contributions. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault with the actions of the Council. Thurrock Council (20 011 851) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's actions after it received a safeguarding referral in respect of his now deceased mother, Ms G. We find the Council was at fault for incorrectly telling the family they could not take Ms G out of respite whilst it completed its safeguarding enquiries. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X for the avoidable distress that caused. However, there is no evidence of injustice to Ms G who wished to remain in respite. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (20 014 104) Summary: The Council failed to complete a care plan prior to Mr Y's admission to a care home and failed to respond appropriately to concerns about his wellbeing and the alleged behaviour of a carer. It also failed to keep in touch with Mr X during and after a safeguarding investigation and failed to provide an adequate complaint response. Torbay Council (20 013 875) Summary: Mrs X complained about the care provided by the Council commissioned care home, Greycliffe Nursing Home to her grandmother, Mrs G. The Care Provider has already admitted it was at fault when the Nursing Home informed Mrs X by text that Mrs G has COVID-19 and when it returned possessions that did not belong to Mrs G. It has apologised for these actions which is satisfactory to remedy the injustice caused. The Nursing Home was at fault when it failed to actively monitor Mrs G's fluid intake. The Council has agreed to apologise to the family for the uncertainty this caused them and make service improvements. Kent County Council (21 000 166) Summary: There is no fault by the Council. The Council has offered to carry out a financial assessment to decide if Mr X's financial contributions towards a well being charge can be reduced. Mr X has refused the financial assessment, so the Council can take no further action. Thurrock Council (21 007 008) Summary: Mr X complains Willows Lodge Care Home, where the Council had placed his mother, failed to allow him to see her as arranged on 8 June 2021, which prevented him from seeing her before she died. The Care Home wrongly denied it had made an arrangement, which caused avoidable distress. The Council needs to apologise and pay financial redress. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 011 443) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a man's care home placement and payments for his home care. This is because the complaint is late and there are not good enough reasons to exercise discretion to investigate it now. Bramley Court Care Homes Limited (21 012 030) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about care provided to his late mother, Mrs C. This is because further investigation could not add to the Care Provider's response. We are satisfied with the remedy provided by the Care Provider. Middlesbrough Borough Council (21 012 269) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions in relation to Mr X's mother before she died. This is because Mr X is not a suitable person to bring this complaint. Somerset County Council (21 012 468) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled Mr X's complaint. This is because we cannot consider Mr X's substantive complaint without consent from his grandson and Mr X has not been caused an injustice as a result of the Council's handling of his complaint. Surrey County Council (21 000 766) Summary: Mrs B complained on behalf of herself and her adult son about the Council's handling of their respite provision and its failure to keep them informed. We found the Council failed to inform Mrs B when the respite provider gave notice on the placement because of which she lost the opportunity to accept an offer of alternative provision. It also failed to inform her that responsibility for her son's support was being transferred to the Clinical Commissioning Group until the day before this was due to happen causing her distress and anxiety. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs B in recognition of the injustice caused. London Borough of Croydon (21 008 475) Summary: We will not 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. Strong Life Care Limited (21 010 322) Summary: Mr X complained his mother's care home billed him for unpaid care charges two and a half years after his mother passed away. Mr X says this situation has caused distress and upset to him and his family. The Ombudsman found fault with the care home for duplicating end-of-life care charges, failing to justify care charges and providing a mistaken refund causing increased underpayments. The Council proposed to clear the debt owed to the care home. The Ombudsman considers this proposal suitable to reflect the fault in this case. The care home agreed to write to Mr X to confirm there is no outstanding balance owed on Mrs Z's account. Nottingham City Council (21 011 170) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the complainant's carers do not wear shoe covers. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Northumberland County Council (21 011 466) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information the Council provides to the public about care services in its area. This is because there is no evidence of fault as the Council's actions are in line with legislation and statutory guidance. Oakfield Quality Homecare Limited (21 011 548) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the care provider's charges. This is because the care provider was not carrying out a regulated activity in connection with providing adult social care. The complaint is therefore outside our jurisdiction with no discretion to investigate. London Borough of Havering (21 011 554) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with safeguarding concerns raised regarding Mrs X and her mother. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council. The Information Commissioner's Office is also better placed to deal with complains about the Council's refusal to share information with Mrs X about the safeguarding complaint. Bristol City Council (21 011 612) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about care provided to his son, Mr C, between 2014 and 2017. This is because any injustice caused to Mr C from the actions of his Care Provider during this time has been remedied during a previous Ombudsman investigation. London Borough of Lambeth (21 012 215) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a disabled persons freedom pass because the Council has agreed to offer the complainant a face to face mobility assessment. Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (21 012 234) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about care provided to his late mother, Mrs C. This is because further investigation could not provide Mr B with a different outcome to that already given by the Care Provider or make a finding of the kind Mr B wants. Swindon Borough Council (21 010 608) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint regarding a safeguarding complaint made against the Council after the complainant's mother had a fall during a care call. This is because the Council dealt with the complaint robustly and therefore investigation would not be able to offer anything further. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (21 011 130) Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaint about care, support and safeguarding of her late father Mr C. This is because we are satisfied with the actions taken by the Council and further investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve a significantly different outcome or make the findings Ms B wants. Derbyshire County Council (20 010 994) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide residential care for Ms Y when he asked for this. This resulted in a delay in Ms Y going into a care home and in Mr X himself collapsing due to the stress of caring for her. We did not find fault with the Council's actions, regarding the matters Mr X complained about. Hampshire County Council (20 011 647) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly respond to his child's, Y's concerns about their Shared Lives carer. He also complained the Council did not ensure the carer allowed Y to meet their partner during a COVID-19 lockdown. The Council failed to consider if issues in the placement should have triggered a safeguarding response. It also delayed in ending the placement. This caused Y uncertainty and distress. The Council will apologise and pay Y £300. London Borough of Croydon (20 013 587) Summary: Mrs B complains the support she received from the Council while her father, Mr Y, was resident in a care home. Mrs B says the Council did not ensure she was involved in decisions about her father's care, did not properly communicate with her and did not allocate a social worker as promised. The Ombudsman finds fault in how the Council considered Mr Y's capacity and communicated with Mrs B around this. Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (21 001 037) Summary: Mr C complained in his own right but also on behalf of his late father, Mr X. He complained Mr X did not receive the amount of care he was assessed as needing and for which he was charged. He considered it was wrong the Council took court action against his father for unpaid care charges. He further complained about how the Council responded to him, both before his father died and subsequently when he was trying to sort out his father's affairs. He said Mr X was caused distress by the court action and was overcharged. And he was put to time and trouble in pursuing the matter. There was some fault which caused injustice to Mr C but that has been remedied by the apology already made. Leeds City Council (21 001 050) Summary: There was fault by a home care provider which acted for a council. A care worker refused to stop working when displaying ambiguous symptoms which were potentially COVID-19. The care provider did not communicate with the family appropriately. This caused them avoidable distress and inconvenience. The council will apologise and make payments. Care UK Community Partnerships Limited (21 001 258) Summary: Mrs X complains about the care her late mother, Mrs Y, received while she lived in Care UK's Pear Tree Court in 2020 and a lack of communication during the weeks leading up to her mother's death. Mrs Y did not receive poor care, but there was a lack of communication. Care UK needs to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs X. West Sussex County Council (21 008 861) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to give the complainant a Blue Badge. This is because the Council has offered to do a face-to-face mobility assessment and an investigation would not add anything more to the outcome agreed. Devon County Council (21 010 080) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care provided to the late Mr B. This is because we could not now provide Mr B with a remedy for any fault an investigation might uncover. Quantum Care Limited (21 010 163) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care provided to Mrs X's mother before she passed away or the Care Provider issuing an invoice for care charges. This is because it is a late complaint and there is no reason why Mrs X could not have complained sooner. 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