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. Coate Water Care Company (Church View Nursing Home) Limited (20 010 381) Summary: The complainant, whom I shall call Ms C, complained on behalf of her (late) father, whom I shall call Mr F. Ms C complained about the way her father was charged for his residential care between 11 December 2019 and 31 January 2020. We found fault with the way the Council dealt with Mr F's financial assessment and the way the care provider dealt with the signing of the contract. Both parties have agreed to apologise for this. Furthermore, the Council will provide a refund of some of the care home fees Mr F had to pay between 11 December 2019 and 31 January 2020. Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council (20 011 807) Summary: Ms X complains the Council has not dealt properly with disabled adaptations to her property. The Council was not at fault. London Borough of Bromley (21 000 422) Summary: Ms T complains on behalf of Miss X about how the Council wrongly completed Miss X's financial reassessment and miscalculated her domiciliary care fees. There was fault by the Council in how it completed a financial reassessment for Miss X. The Council was also at fault when it continued to pay into Miss X's direct payment account despite Miss X telling it she was not using the care services. This has caused Miss X significant distress and inconvenience. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused. North Yorkshire County Council (21 002 355) Summary: the Council was not at fault in its refusal to provide care and support to Ms B. There was no fault in how it made its decision, so we cannot question the decision itself. Hampshire County Council (21 012 857) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging 8% interest on his mother's care costs. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council's actions. We are also unable to investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council failing to update him on accumulating costs of the care as this is a late complaint and there is no good reason for us to investigate this now. Gloucestershire County Council (21 013 026) Summary: The complainant, whom I shall call Ms C, complained on behalf of her (late) father, whom I shall call Mr F. Ms C complained about the way her father was charged for his residential care between 11 December 2019 and 31 January 2020. We found fault with the way the Council dealt with Mr F's financial assessment and the way the care provider dealt with the signing of the contract. Both parties have agreed to apologise for this. Furthermore, the Council will provide a refund of some of the care home fees Mr F had to pay between 11 December 2019 and 31 January 2020. West Sussex County Council (21 013 083) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision that the complainant does not qualify for a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Norfolk County Council (21 013 112) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging the late Mrs C's estate for the legal fees incurred as a result of a deferred payment agreement. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. We are satisfied an apology and review of processes remedies any injustice to Ms B caused by the delay in the Council responding to her complaint. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (21 003 521) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision not to provide him with a Blue Badge. He says the Council did not properly consider his application and this caused him avoidable distress and inconvenience. We found fault regarding the Council's communications with Mr X. The Council has agreed to reconsider Mr X's appeal and provide an apology. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (21 007 494) Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaint about the care provided to her late grandmother, Mrs C. This is because we could not likely add to previous investigations of what happened or achieve a significantly different result. London Borough of Enfield (21 010 067) Summary: The Ombudsmen have decided they will not investigate a complaint about a person's health and social care as it has not been made by a suitable person. Further, it would be reasonable to use an alternative legal remedy. Asher Care Ltd (21 012 002) Summary: Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint about her late father's Care Provider. This is because we could not make a finding of the kind Mrs B wants even if we investigated. We could not now provide a remedy for any fault an investigation might uncover as Mr D is deceased, Leicestershire County Council (21 013 028) Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaint about delays and poor communication with the Council regarding her mother's, Mrs C's, care charges. This is because we could not add to the Council's response or make a different finding even if we investigated. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (21 003 701) Summary: the Council failed to follow the care and support statutory guidance when placing Mrs B's mother in a care home. An apology, agreement for the Council to cover the cost of the top up fee and a reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy. Kent County Council (21 005 008) Summary: Mr C complained the Council failed to consider all his medical information before refusing his Blue Badge application. We find fault with the way the Council considered Mr C's application and the decision letter it issued. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address Mr C's injustice. Cheshire West & Chester Council (21 007 810) Summary: There was fault by the Council which failed to provide appropriate information about care charges at the right time. This caused avoidable distress of receiving a large bill. Within one month of the final decision, the Council will apologise and reduce the bill by £100. Leicester City Council (21 012 598) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions concerning Ms X's relative, Mr Y. This is because Ms X did not have legal authority to represent Mr Y at the time the complaint matters arose. Sheffield City Council (21 013 284) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charges for Mr Y's care. This is because more than 12 months has passed since the charges were raised, and there is not sufficient reasoning for the delay in complaining to us. London Borough of Hillingdon (20 003 958) Summary: The Council's delay approving a Disabled Facilities Grant is fault. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay £2,300, and take action to improve its services. London Borough of Havering (21 001 232) Summary: the Council was not at fault for refusing to pay for a dropped kerb for Mr B. It properly considered his needs, so we cannot question its decision. Birmingham City Council (21 001 736) Summary: Mr X complained about the care provided to his late father Mr Y and the way the Council dealt with his complaint about that. He said the care workers caused more work and stress for Mrs Y and put Mr X at an increased risk of harm. We find the care provided by the Council fell significantly below an acceptable standard. The Council has agreed to waive or refund 50% of Mr Y's contribution for the relevant period, and pay Mrs Y £350 and Mr X £150. It has also agreed to take action to avoid similar faults in future. East Sussex County Council (21 003 247) Summary: Mr X complains about the standard of care received from a care provider the Council had arranged. He complains the carers were inadequate, did not know how to use necessary equipment, often did not provide all the care outlined in his care plan, and was early/late to calls. He also complains about the Council's financial assessment. We find fault with the Council for failing to back date its financial assessment. We also find fault as care was not provided to Mr X in line with his care plan. We have made recommendations. Durham County Council (20 007 142) Summary: The Council failed to offer an appropriate remedy for the identified failings in the care provided to Mr Y at a residential care home. London Borough of Southwark (21 003 429) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council commissioned care provider's actions when her mother went missing at the care home. The Council and care provider investigated the concerns, identified faults and put actions in place to prevent the faults recurring. The Council has already apologised to Miss X. In addition, it has agreed to make a payment to Miss X and Miss Y to acknowledge the distress caused by the faults and to ensure its contract monitoring team continue to monitor compliance with the care home's action plans. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (21 009 046) Summary: Mrs X complains about the outcome of the Council's safeguarding investigation into the care provided to her late father. There was no fault in how the Council carried out its safeguarding investigation. Further investigation by us would unlikely lead to a different outcome. Cheshire West & Chester Council (21 010 539) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of best interest meetings concerning Ms X's daughter. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation would not lead to the outcomes Ms X seeks for her daughter. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (21 012 169) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an adult safeguarding enquiry. There is not enough evidence any fault by the Council caused Mr X injustice, and we are unlikely to achieve a different outcome, so investigation is not warranted. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (21 012 701) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled Mrs Y's move into residential care. It is unlikely that our involvement would lead to a different outcome. Cheshire West & Chester Council (21 012 711) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about inaccuracies contained in a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) report. This is because the Council's actions have not caused either Mr B or his mother, Mrs C, a significant enough injustice to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (21 012 741) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of matters relating to Mr X's care. This is because the complaint is a late complaint and the matters complained about happened too long ago to be investigated now. Mid Sussex District Council (20 004 351) Summary: We upheld complaint from Mr X about a lack of support from the Council when his daughter's through-floor lift broke down. The Council failed to offer interim support or meet Mr X's costs when the family had to stay away from their home. As a result, Mr X and his family suffered a significant injustice. The Council agreed to pay a financial remedy to recognise the injustice caused and review its internal procedures. Coventry City Council (20 006 183) Summary: Mr D complains the Council's adult social care team failed to help him deal with his council tax benefits or to get food during the first coronavirus lockdown in 2020. The Council did not send Mr D a copy of his care and support assessment, but this did not cause him any injustice. We have found no fault in the other parts of Mr D's complaint. Essex County Council (21 000 261) Summary: the complainant, Ms X complained the Council failed to honour its commitment to fund her mother's care in a care home the Council arranged for the family. This led to the family incurring a large debt. The Council said it provided the family with full details of the charges, outlined them in its financial assessment and so it believes they knew they must pay the care charges. We found the Council acted with fault in not making this clear. However, the service user's financial assessment would always show she must pay a contribution to her care costs limiting the injustice. The Council agreed to apologise and pay £200 in recognition of the confusion and distress caused. Lincolnshire County Council (21 000 911) Summary: Ms X complains the Council was at fault as it did not communicate her mother, Mrs Y would be required to contribute towards a domiciliary care service. The Council has accepted it was at fault. It has apologised and offered to withdraw the invoice for the charges incurred. This is a suitable remedy in this case, so we have completed our investigation. Dorset Council (21 005 322) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's handling of her father's financial assessment in December 2020. There was fault in the way the Council decided that gifts to great grandchildren amounted to a deprivation of assets and it will reconsider that decision. There was also an initial failure to explain its reasons for deciding a payment for renovations amounted to a deprivation of assets, for which it should apologise. Caring Homes Healthcare Group Limited (21 011 179) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of residential care and the Care Provider's response when Miss X raised concerns. This is because the Care Provider has already provided a suitable remedy and there is nothing further we could achieve. Kent County Council (21 012 003) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions regarding Mrs X's father's care needs. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault with the actions of the Council. The Council has also take action to refund care charges to cover an apparent deficit in care provided and there is nothing further we could achieve from an Investigation. Plymouth City Council (21 012 094) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the valuation of a 50% share in a property. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's decision-making process to justify investigating. 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