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. Leicestershire County Council (21 005 029) Summary: Mrs Y complained about the reablement service the Council provided for her and her late husband, and the care charges they were asked to pay. We have found fault by the Council, in failing to provide clear information about the review of their reablement care, causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising, waiving some initial charges, and making a payment to Mrs Y to reflect her upset and service improvements. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (21 005 234) Summary: We investigated a complaint about the care the Nursing Home provided to Mrs Y and the Council's safeguarding investigation. We found fault with the record keeping and complaint handling by the Nursing Home and that the Council's safeguarding investigation was not completed on time. These faults caused avoidable frustration to Mr X. We recommended an apology and service improvements to address this injustice. London Borough of Sutton (21 009 157) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to arrange a follow up safeguarding meeting as agreed, in relation to concerns a care home failed to call an ambulance in response to her mother's seizures. The Council's failure to communicate clearly with Ms X amounts to fault. This fault has caused Ms X distress and uncertainty and put her to unnecessary time and trouble. Essex County Council (21 010 309) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to clearly communicate or respond properly to his queries about the payment arrangements for his late mother, Mrs Y's care. The Council was at fault. There were errors in communication around Mrs Y's finances, delays in responding to his complaint, and it failed to keep Mr X updated about Mrs Y's care. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Mr X £200 to acknowledge the uncertainty and frustration this caused. It has agreed to review its procedures to prevent a recurrence of the faults. West Sussex County Council (21 010 987) Summary: There was fault in how the Council considered a Blue Badge application. The Council had already addressed the injustice this caused to the complainant, by offering her a face-to-face mobility assessment, but it has now also agreed to review other recent decisions it has made, to determine whether other applications were affected by the same fault. Surrey County Council (21 017 767) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's actions after a relative died intestate. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation. Anchor Hanover Group (21 018 439) Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the standard of care in a care home. There is not a good reason Mrs X did not complain to us sooner. Leicestershire County Council (20 010 675) Summary: Mrs Y complained about the quality of care provided to Mr Y by Kibworth Court Residential Home, on behalf of the Council, and the Council's response to, and investigation of, her concerns about his care. We have found fault by Kibworth Court in failing to keep accurate records, and properly assess Mr Y's skin condition, causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy Kibworth Court's faults by apologising to Mrs Y and making a payment to reflect her distress, and providing evidence of the action taken to improve Kibworth Court's service. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (21 010 079) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to notify her it had started a safeguarding in respect of her father and failed to complete the investigation and explain the reasons for this decision. The Council closed the safeguarding investigation prematurely in error, which is fault. It has now completed a retrospective safeguarding investigation reaching a decision that is unlikely to have been different even if it had been completed sooner. Trafford Council (21 013 578) Summary: The Council was at fault for delays in arranging funding for Mr B's residential care. This meant his savings were depleted and he built up a large debt with the care home. The Council has now paid the debt and reinstated Mr B's savings. It has also agreed that a senior manager will investigate and brief staff on the Council's failings in this case, and it has agreed to pay Mr B's son-in-law £250 to recognise the time he spent on the complaint. Chase House Limited (21 013 934) Summary: We did not uphold complaints about the late Mrs Y's care at the end of her life. We were satisfied the Care Provider offered appropriate care around eating and drinking, obtaining health care and communicated well with the family. Buckinghamshire Council (21 014 707) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the domiciliary care provided to the complainant's father. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. For some parts of the complaint there is not enough evidence of fault, in others the personal injustice is not significant enough. For the rest of the complaint, it is unlikely we could add anything to the Care Provider's response. Thurrock Council (21 018 917) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the involvement with the complainant after his ex-wife was taken to care because these events happened too long ago. Furthermore, we cannot investigate any complaint relating to the care of the complainants late ex-wife because he is not a suitable representative. Assini Limited (21 018 997) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of a Private Care Provider. This is because the actions complained of fall outside of our jurisdiction to investigate as they do not relate to the provision of adult social care. London Borough of Barnet (21 016 967) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with issues regarding a Disabled Facilities Grant. This is because the complaint has been made late. Richmond Care Villages Holdings Limited (21 017 145) Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaint about an accident her father, Mr C, had whilst being transported in the Care Provider's vehicle. This is because further investigation could not add to the Care Provider's response. Norfolk County Council (21 017 799) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions regarding Mrs X's mother prior to her death. This is because there is an ongoing Domestic Homicide Review which will consider the Council's actions and it would not be appropriate for us to investigate as the same time. Warwickshire County Council (21 018 411) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care the complainant's husband received and the Council's response to her complaint. We would not be able to add anything significant to matters already investigated. Staffordshire County Council (21 002 310) Summary: The Ombudsmen found there was fault by a Council and a care provider with supervision levels. The care provider took action which remedied this issue satisfactorily. We found fault by a care provider with weight monitoring and foot care, but we were unable to say this caused an injustice. The Ombudsmen also found fault with how the care provider reported accidents involving a resident's Motability car. The care provider has agreed to our recommendation that it makes a payment to address the financial loss an insurance claim would not cover. 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. 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