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. Hand 2 Hold Limited (20 012 509) Summary: the complainant Mrs X complained the Care Provider failed to provide the care service she expected putting her parents at risk. This caused anxiety and distress. The Care Provider says it resolved any issues brought to its attention. We found the Care Provider caused injustice for which we have recommended a remedy. Darlington Borough Council (21 003 967) Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of Mr Y that the Council failed to carry out its safeguarding duties towards him following Mr Y's request for help and support. Ms X says the Council's actions have had a negative impact on Mr Y's mental health. We have found fault by the Council in this matter. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr Y and make a payment to recognise the uncertainty caused by the fault identified. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (21 004 194) Summary: The Council was at fault, because it did not offer the complainant's mother an affordable care home placement, before asking her to pay a top-up towards her mother's fees. This meant the top-up arrangement did not adhere with the statutory guidance. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice this caused, by reimbursing the complainant the money she should not have paid. London Borough of Wandsworth (21 005 661) Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of Mrs Y that the Council failed to pay for her residential care during renovation work on her home. He said this has caused him a financial impact and Mrs Y would have been at risk if she had stayed at home. He would like the Council to pay for the residential care placement. We found some fault in the way the Council dealt with this and the Council has agreed to apologise for this. Caring Hands East London Ltd (21 005 978) Summary: the complainant Miss X complained the Care Provider failed to prevent poor service from its care workers leading to Miss X experiencing a loss of care and increased anxiety. The Care Provider said it suspended the care worker responsible for the unprofessional care and offered a suitable alternative. We found the Care Provider caused injustice and recommended a remedy. Lancashire County Council (21 007 727) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council has communicated with Mr B. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with actions taken by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. Christies Care Ltd (21 007 762) Summary: The Care Provider acknowledged failings in the management of Mrs Y's care before the involvement of this office, but it failed to offer an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused. Essex County Council (21 008 002) Summary: There was some fault in the way the Council investigated safeguarding concerns into Mrs C's care at the care home. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B. London Borough of Hillingdon (21 009 149) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to tell her it had placed a land charge on her property following disabled facilities grant works. The Council was not at fault for placing a charge on the property. It was at fault for failing to properly consider whether to waive repayment of the grant, for providing conflicting information about the amount due and for requiring repayment of a second grant which was for remedial works resulting from faults with the original works. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X, remove the charge for the second DFG, review its decision to require repayment of the grant and pay Ms X £150 to acknowledge the frustration caused to her. London Borough of Newham (21 014 585) Summary: The Council acknowledged an error in processing Mr X's application for a blue badge. It apologised to him and awarded him a blue badge. The investigation will be discontinued. Nottingham City Council (21 015 353) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about jewellery that went missing when Mrs X was a resident in a care home. That is because there are other bodies better placed to deal with the matter and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. North Yorkshire County Council (21 016 195) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to charge Mr X for care he receives or his complaints about overcharging. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council. London Borough of Camden (21 016 393) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with concerns about Mr X and his family. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council. Northumberland County Council (21 016 768) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions regarding Miss X's late father when he was in care. This is because the Council has already provided a remedy for the injustice caused to the family which goes beyond what we would usually recommend. Therefore there is nothing further we can achieve from an investigation of this complaint. West Northamptonshire Council (21 003 087) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to ensure her son, Mr Z, received appropriate care, and also failed to complete his mental capacity assessment and care and support reassessment. The Council was not at fault in relation to these matters. However, it is at fault for delaying in making a decision about the most appropriate action to take to progress the case. It should take steps to prevent any further drift occurring. Care UK Community Partnerships Limited (21 004 728) Summary: There is no evidence of proper oral care for Mr X. Mr X incurred dental fees as a consequence which the care provider has reimbursed. There was poor maintenance of some fluid and hygiene records although their absence is mitigated by the detail in the daily records. Beyond the failure to provide the proper standard of oral hygiene, which the care provider has already remedied, there is no evidence the care provider's actions caused injustice to Mr X. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 005 345) Summary: Ms C complained that the Council does not want to pay more, to enable her daughter to move into the care home she likes. She said that, instead, it has offered a cheaper home that is not suitable. While we found there was some fault with regards to the issues we investigated, there was no fault with the way the Council reached its decision about the care home it offered. North Somerset Council (21 006 299) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her with suitable care. The Council was at fault for failing to reassess Ms X's needs or review her care and support plan and for failing to take suitable action to identify a care provider. This meant Ms X has been without a suitable care package since August 2021, which caused her distress. The Council has agreed to carry out a new needs assessment, pay her £300 and remind its staff of the proper processes. Birmingham City Council (21 014 629) Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about a charge placed on his property by the Council. This is because the matter has been decided in court and is therefore outside our jurisdiction. Luton Borough Council (21 015 746) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision that the complainant is not eligible for a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council (21 000 966) Summary: We upheld part of Mr X's complaint about the Council's funding for a disabled facilities grant to adapt his home for his son. The Council failed to consider whether it should pay a discretionary grant towards the work. This created uncertainty for Mr X about whether more funding should have been available. The Council agreed to apologise and consider Mr X's request for discretionary funding. West Sussex County Council (21 004 687) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision to refuse his application to renew his blue badge. The Ombudsman found fault causing injustice because the Council failed to properly consider Mr X's appeal. The Council agreed to arrange a mobility assessment for Mr X. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (21 004 756) Summary: Mr F complains about the Council's decision to reduce the hours he could attend a day centre following the centre's closure in the first COVID-19 lockdown. We found some fault which caused uncertainty to Mr F and his shared lives carers. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to them. Surrey County Council (21 005 184) Summary: There was fault by the Council as its social care assessments contained inaccurate information about the source of a medical diagnosis. This caused Mr X avoidable distress. The Council will apologise, make Mr X a symbolic payment and rectify its records. London Borough of Bromley (21 006 747) Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council carried out a financial assessment for her mother, Mrs Y. There was fault with how the Council and its provider gave Mrs X appropriate information and advice about care charging and in how it treated Mrs Y as a temporary care home resident when she was not. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X for the avoidable frustration and uncertainty this caused her and pay a financial remedy. It also agreed to review its procedures. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (20 011 940) Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to assess his friend's contributions for residential care properly. He said Mr Y could not afford the payments. I have not found evidence of fault by the Council. London Borough of Hillingdon (21 000 143) Summary: Mr X complained he was not told about the standard charge for care services at the extra care housing accommodation where he lives. The Council was at fault as it failed to explain the standard care charges associated with extra care housing when Mr X moved in. The Council has agreed to waive the charges and assist Mr X to move should he wish to do so. It has agreed to ensure prospective tenants are provided with information about the service charges associated with extra care housing. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (20 013 481) Summary: Mrs C complained about the way in which the Council supported her mother. We found fault with the way an assessment was carried out, which however did not result in an injustice to Mrs C or her mother. London Borough of Hillingdon (21 001 888) Summary: Mr Y complained the Council overcharged him for care and failed to make him aware of the standard charge for care services when he moved into an extra care housing facility. The Council was not at fault. The records show the Council explained the charges associated with extra care housing, and has charged Mr Y for care based on his financial contribution. Community Integrated Care (CIC) (21 007 182) Summary: Mrs X complains about the care her late grandmother, Mrs Y, received at St Catherine's Care Home, which is run by Community Integrated Care (CIC). CIC accepts the Care Home did not keep proper records of the care provided for Mrs Y and did not assess all her needs properly. This means it cannot evidence all the care provided for Mrs Y and is unlikely to have met all her needs properly. This has caused avoidable distress to her family. CIC needs to apologise, make a symbolic payment to her family and take action to prevent similar failings. Sheffield City Council (21 009 356) Summary: Mr F complains about the Council's decision to refuse his application for a blue badge. Following contact from the Ombudsman the Council reviewed Mr F's case and has now issued him with a badge. We are satisfied this remedies the injustice he was caused. Bupa Care Homes (BNH) Limited (21 014 482) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint the care provider has failed to honour a binding agreement to apply a permanent 2% reduction to his mother's care home fees. This is because there is no sign of fault by the care provider. Shropshire Council (21 016 597) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to provide advice to Mrs X about the use of her daughter's direct payments or its failure to complete direct payment audits. That is because the complaint is late. Staffordshire County Council (21 005 636) Summary: Ms X complained the Council told her to remove her conservatory, resulting in loss of property value and damage to her property. We have discontinued our investigation because we cannot add to any previous investigation by the Council and it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. West Sussex County Council (21 009 176) Summary: We stopped investigating Ms X's complaints about a care home's communication with her. The case is currently with the Court of Protection which is best placed to deal with the issues. Our involvement is therefore not appropriate. Caring Homes (TFP) Group Ltd (21 013 465) Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Care Provider treated her and the care it provided to her grandmother. We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint. 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 to the Care Provider's response or achieve the outcomes Mrs X wants. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (21 014 886) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to the issues the complainant raised. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision about her mother's care and it is not unreasonable to expect the complainant to go to court if she wishes to challenge the Council's decisions. Sunderland City Council (21 016 392) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council cared for his father. This is because we cannot achieve any meaningful outcome or carry out an effective investigation into what happened. There is also no evidence of fault in the way the Council responded to his concerns about financial exploitation.. 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