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. Hamilton Care Ltd (20 010 932, report) Summary: Adverse Findings Notice issued because Hamilton Care Ltd failed to provide part of the recommendation to remedy a complaint by the Ombusman. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (21 001 468) Summary: Miss X and Mrs Y complained the Council: stopped them from seeing, Mr P, who Miss X considers to be her step-father, when he was in hospital and in a care home. They say the Council has not explained why they were not allowed to visit Mr P; stopped them from giving Mr P his personal belongings; and took safeguarding action against them but did not tell them what it was for at the time. Miss X and Mrs Y say the Council's actions have caused them distress and frustration because they were only allowed to see Mr P for a short time before he died. Norwich City Council (20 011 124) Summary: Mrs B says the Council failed to properly inspect and wrongly signed off works completed under a disabled facilities grant when the works were not completed satisfactorily. I have found no evidence of fault by the Council. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (20 014 282) Summary: Mr B complained that the Council issued a backdated invoice to his mother for care which he had tried to cancel and was often not provided. The Ombudsman found no fault on the Council's part. East Sussex County Council (21 003 786) Summary: Ms C complained about the way in which the Council carried out a financial assessment for her mother's care home placement. Ms C said it took a lot of time and trouble to get the appropriate outcome, which caused her distress. We found there were delays in the process that should have been avoided. The Council has agreed to apologise for these. Aldergrove Manor Ltd (21 013 009) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of care in a care home. We could not add to the investigation that has already taken place, nor could we achieve a different outcome. Telford & Wrekin Council (21 013 704) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to provide the urgent social care support the complainant's mother needed. This is because it is unlikely we could add significantly to the Council's findings or that we would recommend further action by the Council in addition to the steps it has already agreed to take to address the shortcomings it has identified. Dorset Council (21 014 432) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to include the complainant's mother's 50% share in a property in its financial assessment. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council has dealt with the substantive issue to justify investigating. Methodist Homes (20 006 371) Summary: The care provider failed to provide proper care and treatment to the late Mrs X and did not protect her from abuse. It also failed to carry out a proper investigation of Ms A's complaints. The care provider should now offer Ms A a sum as detailed below. It has confirmed its improvements to care quality. Norfolk County Council (20 013 119) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly assess her son's needs under the disabled facility grant process. There was no fault in the Council's actions. Durham County Council (21 004 117) Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about how the Council handled their disabled facilities grant referral and application. There was no fault in the Council's actions. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 004 180) Summary: There was fault by the Council in failing to audit Ms Y's direct payment or carry out yearly financial assessments. This caused Ms Y and her family avoidable confusion. The Council will apologise, write off an overspend, reclaim an overpayment, reduce the outstanding client contribution and take action to improve services described in this statement. Kent County Council (21 006 450) Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not consider his opinion or the information he provided about his health problems when he requested a stairlift as an adaptation to his home. The Council's decision-making was flawed and took too long. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X for the uncertainty and frustration caused to him and reconsider his request. Leicester City Council (21 006 489) Summary: There was no fault by the Council in its dealings with Mr and Mrs B in relation to their role as attorneys for their late friend, Mr X. Surrey County Council (21 007 850) Summary: There was fault by the Council in record keeping and handling sensitive data and this caused Mr X avoidable distress. The Council will apologise, pay him £500, erase a letter and arrange training for staff. Shropshire Council (21 009 053) Summary: We did not uphold Ms X's complaint about reclaiming an unspent direct payment because the Council acted in line with Care and Support Statutory Guidance and its direct payment policy and explained how it had calculated the payment that Mr Y needed to make. Durham County Council (21 010 771) Summary: We have completed our investigation. There is no fault in how the Council dealt with Miss X's allegation of abuse. Manchester City Council (21 012 475) Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council's failure to arrange a continuing healthcare assessment. There is not a good reason Mrs X did not bring it to us sooner. Conifers Care Homes Ltd (20 005 997) Summary: Mrs X complains the Care Provider failed to reduce her late mother's care fees when it successfully applied for Funded Nursing Care contributions. The Care Provider said it did not charge for services covered by the Funded Nursing Care contribution and so it has not overcharged for its services. We found the Care Provider acted in line with its terms and conditions but the lack of clarity over charging caused an injustice. London Borough of Ealing (20 013 753) Summary: Ms D complains about a cut to her late son's care package, which he received from Ealing Mencap funded by the Council, during the COVID-19 lockdown in 2021. We have found fault which caused injustice to Ms D and her late son. The Council has agreed apologise and make a payment to her to acknowledge this. Mrs Sushma Nayar and Vipin Parkash Nayar (20 014 457) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charges for residential care. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is no worthwhile outcome an investigation could achieve because the Care Provider has agreed to the complainant's request for a refund. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (21 004 869) Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his wife about the actions of Comfort Call, the care agency commissioned by the Council. The Council was at fault for the delay in telling him about the concerns carers raised, carers changing last minute and often arriving late. This resulted in avoidable distress and uncertainty for Mr X and his wife. The Council agreed to pay Mr X and his wife £150 each for the injustice its faults have caused them. Brighterkind (Granby Care) Limited (21 006 026) Summary: Mr X complained about the care provided to his mother Mrs Y at the care provider's care home. There was fault as there were delays in answering her call bell, in sorting her email access and in discussing her meal preferences. The care provider has agreed to apologise and pay Mrs Y £200 to acknowledge the distress and frustration this caused. There was no fault in its involvement in arranging a wheelchair. I have not investigated the care provider's refusal to accept Mrs Y back after a hospital admission as it is unlikely I would find fault as Mrs Y's needs had changed. London Borough of Newham (21 010 753) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint relating to the domiciliary care package her father received leading up to his death in 2018. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and I see no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider this late complaint now. Rings Homecare Service Ltd (21 011 706) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the support provided by Rings Homecare Service. That is because Mr X made a claim to the County Court about this matter. Therefore, his complaint is outside of our jurisdiction. Sheffield City Council (21 012 371) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care and support the Council provided to Mr X's father before he passed away. This is because Mr X has not provided us with sufficient evidence to show he is a suitable person to raise this complaint. London Borough of Croydon (21 002 047) Summary: Ms C complains the Council delayed in providing services to Mr D and share his care plan. The Council assessed and provided services to Mr D promptly. There was fault in the way the Council dealt with Ms C's complaint which caused her time, trouble, and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms C and review the complaints process. Blackpool Borough Council (21 003 842) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's actions and decisions in its role as an appointee for this late brother, Mr Y's, finances who lived in a nursing home. There was no fault in the Council's decisions around Mr Y's finances which were made with his best interests in mind. The Council was at fault for failing to consider whether to apply to the Court of Protection to become Mr Y's deputy but that did not cause Mr X an injustice. The Council agreed to remind relevant officers of when to consider applying to the Court of Protection, in line with its policy. Liverpool City Council (21 013 963) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint about the care her late mother, Mrs C, received from her Care Provider or the Council's safeguarding investigation into concerns she raised about the care. This is because we are satisfied the Council considered Mrs B's concerns under its responsibility for safeguarding vulnerable adults and further investigation could not make a finding of the kind Mrs B wants. Friends of the Elderly (21 014 110) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the quality of care her mother received when she was a resident of Bradbury Court. That is because we could not add anything to Friends of the Elderly's previous investigation and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (21 014 950) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the conditions of the Council's travel pass scheme does not allow her to use the trains for free. This is because the complainant has been using a travel pass with this condition imposed since 2014. This complaint is therefore late and I see no reason why it could not have been raised sooner. HC-One Oval Limited (20 007 315) Summary: Mrs X complains HC-One Oval Limited's Lyndon Hall Nursing Home failed to look after her late mother properly and failed to keep her family informed about the deterioration in her condition before she died, causing unnecessary distress. HC-One accepts Lyndon Hall failed to deal properly with two falls and failed to communicate properly with Mrs X after it stopped her visits. Lyndon Hall also failed to do a risk assessment for visits to Mrs X's mother, adding further to her distress. HC-One needs to apologise and pay financial redress. Bristol City Council (21 003 606) Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council arranged or delivered Mr Y's care and support or dealt with his request to be moved. Kent County Council (21 007 457) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's refusal to issue a blue parking badge to him. He said that, as a result, it is more difficult for him to access the community and he undertakes fewer journeys. We found there was no fault with regards to the Council's actions. London Borough of Redbridge (21 009 085) Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it assessed Mrs Y's care needs. Bath and North East Somerset Council (21 009 719) Summary: The complaint will be discontinued because we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X is seeking, that the Council hold a best interest meeting for her friend. London Borough of Croydon (21 011 494) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about social care invoices the Council sent to the complainant. That is because it is unlikely we would be able to add to the Council's investigation or achieve a significantly different outcome for the complainant. London Borough of Hackney (19 017 688) Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of his son, Mr Y, that the Council says it needs to review Mr Y's care and support plan before producing a new personal budget. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely an investigation would find fault by the Council. 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