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. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (21 006 231) Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of her son, Mr Y, about care and support charges from the Council. She said the Council sent two years' worth of invoices to Mr Y, who did not know he had to contribute to the cost of his care as no one from the Council spoke to him about it. The Ombudsman found fault causing injustice because the Council failed to maintain a proper oversight of Mr Y's care and support and failed to carry out adequate financial reviews. West Sussex County Council (21 013 925) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging the late Mrs C for her care. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. London Borough of Croydon (21 015 223) Summary: The Council failed to properly consider Mrs X's application for a blue badge because it failed to record the reasoning for its decisions and failed to undertake a mobility assessment. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (21 016 873) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to disregard Mrs B's property in her financial assessment. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the Council's actions to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. London Borough of Wandsworth (21 001 259) Summary: We found fault with the record keeping by the district nurses and the way they ordered dressings. We also found there was a lack of a multidisciplinary team approach to Mr B's care. We found the Council did not action its safeguarding enquiry immediately and it was not open and honest with Miss A during the complaints process. These faults caused avoidable distress and frustration to Miss A. We recommended an apology, service improvements and financial recompense to address this injustice. Gloucestershire County Council (21 005 067) Summary: We found no fault by the Council with regards to the action it took to safeguard Mrs D, an elderly woman with complex care needs. We also found no fault by the Council and Trust concerning the planning for Mrs D's discharge from hospital. However, we found fault with the Council's communication with Mrs D's family. The Council agreed to pay a financial remedy in recognition of the distress this caused. Lincolnshire County Council (21 007 887) Summary: Mr B complains about the Council's decision not to allow him to use direct payments to employ his mother, who he lives with, as his personal assistant. We found fault as the Council has not properly considered whether there might be exceptional circumstances. The Council has agreed to re-consider Mr B's request and review its procedures. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (21 013 303) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision not to appoint him as Relevant Person's Representative for his mother's Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation. We have ended the investigation as the appointed Relevant Person's Representative has approached the Court of Protection and Mr X is party to the proceedings. The Court is best placed to address Mr X's concerns and make decisions in his mother's best interests. Thurrock Council (21 014 659) Summary: We will not investigate Ms R's complaint about the handling of her mother's discharge from hospital and related safeguarding concerns. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault with the Trust and Council's actions. We will not investigate her complaints about communication and complaint handling as there is unlikely to be sufficient remaining injustice to investigate these issues alone and reasonable steps have already been taken to put things right. Saima Raja AKA Braemar Care Centre (21 018 066) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider refusing to issue a refund. This is because the Care Provider has now issued the refund. This remedies the claimed injustice and an investigation could not achieve anything more. Cumbria County Council (21 007 659) Summary: Mrs X complained about the level of care provided to her mother, Ms Y, in the last few days of her life by the care home. She also complained about the clearing of Ms Y's room and the way her belongings were handled. There were failings in the care home's records in the last few days of Ms Y's life and it failed to properly safeguard her belongings after her death. The Council, which commissioned the care, should apologise, pay Mrs X £250 and ensure the care home takes action to prevent recurrence. Staffordshire County Council (21 010 785) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care fees. There is insufficient evidence of fault with how the Council calculated the fees originally. The Council's mistake to correctly apply the increased fees benefitted Mr X for 4 years. The Council is no longer pursuing the backdated fees. Any fault by the Council has not caused an injustice to the person complaining. Trafford Council (21 010 920) Summary: Mrs B complained about the Council's refusal to award her a Blue Badge. During the investigation she applied again with new evidence and her application was successful. We have discontinued the investigation as the complaint is resolved. East Anglia Care Homes Limited (21 011 000) Summary: Mr X complains his brother's care home failed to tell him there was COVID-19 in the home, from which his brother died, and the care provider inappropriately contacted him about outstanding fees shortly after his death. The care home should have told Mr X his brother was at the end of his life. The Care Provider should not have contacted him about the outstanding fees. These failings caused avoidable distress which requires a further apology. Aegis Residential Care Homes Limited (21 011 399) Summary: Mr C complains the Care Provider failed to keep his late mother safe causing a harmful impact on her health and distress to her family. We have found fault by the Care Provider in failing to ensure a protocol put in place was both adequate and robustly followed but consider the agreed action of an apology and payment provides a suitable remedy. Birmingham City Council (21 017 364) Summary: We will not investigate a complaint about the Trust not being clear with Mrs N about Mrs O's diagnosis and the refusal by the Council to pay for care fees. Mrs N wants compensation, and it is reasonable for her to pursue this by making a legal claim against the organisations. Highlands Borders Care Home Limited (21 018 500) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of care at a care home. This is because the Care Provider has agreed to take action we recommended to remedy the injustice to Mrs X. Suffolk County Council (21 018 625) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to renew the complainant's Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Isle of Wight Homecare Ltd (20 005 193) Summary: Miss X complains the care home is pursuing her late grandmother, Mrs Y's, estate for care home fees when she is not clear that the amount owed is correct and also about suspicious activity on Mrs Y's bank account. She wants the care provider to waive the fees. I have ended my investigation as the matters relate to events that happened too long ago for me to investigate now, allegations of fraud or theft are police matters, there is insufficient evidence of injustice to Mrs Y and any injustice to Mrs Y can no longer be remedied. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (21 000 993) Summary: Mrs Y complained about the Council's assessment of her support needs. We have found fault by the Council in its delay completing one of the assessments. The Council should remedy this by making a payment to reflect the distress this caused Mrs Y. London Borough of Harrow (21 003 547) Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not appropriately safeguard his father Mr D and failed to involve him and his sister Ms Y in its decisions regarding Mr D's social care needs. He also complained the Council did not properly respond to complaints he made about this. He said this matter caused him and his family distress. The Council was at fault when it delayed arranging a capacity and needs assessment for Mr D. The Council has agreed to do so now and provide evidence it has reminded its staff of the importance of arranging timely assessments when necessary. Wiltshire Council (21 005 541) Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his father, Mr P, that the Council did not carry out a timely assessment of Mr P's care needs following hospital discharge. There was also poor communication with his family about a financial assessment and changes to funding for his care package. The Council was at fault. It has already reimbursed Mr P for the care charges he paid. It has agreed to make separate payments to Mr P and Mrs X to recognise their distress and inconvenience. Medway Council (21 009 724) Summary: Mrs X complains about the care received by her mother during her time in a care home. She says the care home could not manage her mother's needs, did not keep accurate records, and did not update the family appropriately. She also complains the Council did not involve the family when it made best interest decisions for her mother. We find some fault. We have made recommendations for the Council to remedy the injustice caused. City of York Council (21 012 834) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered concerns Mrs X raised in relation to care her mother received whilst in a residential home. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council considered the concerns to warrant further investigation. The Council was at fault for failing to explain the outcome of the investigation to Ms X. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and write to her with its findings. That remedies any injustice caused. Hampshire County Council (21 015 446) Summary: We will not investigate Mr A's complaint about the handling of his mother, Mrs B's, discharge from hospital. This is because we are not satisfied Mrs B has fully consented to Mr A complaining to us on her behalf. We therefore do not consider Mr A suitable to bring this complaint to us. Norfolk County Council (21 016 378) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X's respite care at this time. We could not currently come to sound conclusions, because there is an ongoing safeguarding investigation and a coroner's inquest. It is open to Mr X to resubmit his complaint to us at a later date. Leicestershire County Council (21 017 945) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs Y's care at the end of her life. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, and we could not add to the investigation the Council has already carried out. Verve Health Limited (22 000 175) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaints about the actions of a Care Provider. This is because the actions complained of are not matters the Ombudsman can investigate as they do not relate to the provision of adult social care. Birmingham City Council (21 006 887) Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with a safeguarding report about his mother. We found there was fault in the Council's actions that warranted a remedy. We also found fault in the way the Council responded to the complaint. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (21 017 275) Summary: We will not investigate a complaint about the Council's decision not to discharge Mrs H into a care home in August 2019. This is because it is late and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to the desired outcome. Sheffield City Council (21 017 552) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to renew the complainant's Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (21 018 627) Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about inconsistent information regarding a fall to Mr X's Mother in March 2020. This is because we cannot add to the Council's response or make a finding of the kind Mr X wants. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (21 014 953) Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council's safeguarding investigation. There is not a good reason Mr X did not complain to us 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