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. Peterborough City Council (21 003 925) Summary: We found fault with the Trust; it did not allocate Mr Q a new care coordinator, did not conduct a S117 review or formally discharge him, and it was not clear with Mr P during the complaints process. We also found the Council did not understand the care package it was providing to Mr Q. This caused confusion to Mr P when he tried to clarify. We recommended an apology and service improvements to address this injustice. Cheshire West & Chester Council (21 010 265) Summary: Mrs X complains about the charges for her son's care after he left a care home to live with his family because of COVID-19. Although the Council agreed to waive 50% of the charge, Mrs X says this left her son without enough money to contribute towards the family's increased household costs. The Council failed to review Mr Y's needs or consider ending his placement when he went to stay with his family. This prevented him from accessing all his money and caused avoidable distress to his family. The Council needs to apologise, waive all Mr Y's charges since 1 June 2020 and pay financial redress to his family. Suffolk County Council (21 014 643) Summary: There was poor communication with Mr X and Mrs X about a referral to an advocate and a delay in complaint handling. This was fault which caused avoidable distress and time and trouble. The Council will apologise and make a payment of £150 to reflect the injustice. Bristol City Council (21 015 881) Summary: We will not investigate Mr C's complaint about damage to his property or the Council's refusal to change his front door. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the Council's actions to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. Claims for damages are properly for the courts to consider and it would be reasonable for Mr C to ask the court to consider his claim. Hertfordshire County Council (21 016 154) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to apply to court for deputyship for Mr Z. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action and it is open to the family to contest the application via the courts. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (21 018 082) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging Mrs B for care neither she nor her husband, Mr B knew would be chargeable. This is because the Council has agreed to waiver the outstanding charges and we are satisfied this and the additional recommendations identified by the Council remedies the injustice caused to Mrs B. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (21 018 786) Summary: We do not propose to investigate this complaint about the Council's provision of information with regard to charging for residential care provision. This is because although there was fault by the Council, we do not consider it caused the injustice the complainant claims, and we cannot achieve his desired outcome. Leeds City Council (21 018 958) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs Y's death in a care home, which the family believe was due to choking on meat. We could not say that any fault had caused injustice to Mrs Y and her family, because a coroner found Mrs Y did not die from choking. Miss Lucy Craig (22 000 457) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider's actions towards the complainant when visiting his father. This is because we could achieve nothing significant by doing so. Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (22 000 697) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Disability Related Expenditure. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice. Nottinghamshire County Council (21 011 999) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council decided her mother deprived herself of assets before her death. Mrs X also complained the Council took two years from her mother's death to chase her, and her sister, for her mother's care home fees. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council's decision that Mrs X's mother deprived herself of assets. But, the Ombudsman does find fault with the Council's clarity and transparency over its decision and delays causing Mrs X frustration and uncertainty. The Council agreed to the Ombudsman's recommendation to apologise to Mrs X and reduce the outstanding balance owed by £400. The Council has already provided training to its staff. Derby City Council (21 013 240) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has not provided the required support to meet her adult son, Y's, needs since March 2019 and is refusing to fund a live-in personal assistant. I have ended my investigation. Part of the complaint is out of time, there is insufficient evidence of fault and the Council has agreed to Mrs X's request to use Y's direct payment to employ the family member currently living at their address. Further investigation could achieve nothing more. Belgravia Care Home Limited (21 015 165) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the alleged Care Provider's failings during the complainant's admission to a residential care home. This is because the Care Provider has already offered a suitable remedy for the issues raised in the complaint and the complainant is satisfied with the outcome. Medway Council (21 018 780) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about fees the Council charged the complainant for care. This is because the Council has agreed to cancel the fees. Sunderland City Council (21 018 928) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's actions during a care assessment as there is not enough evidence of fault and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. We will also not investigate Mr X's complaint about the standard of care he received in a care home because the Council has not had the opportunity to respond to his complaint. We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about his care when sectioned under the Mental Health Act as we cannot investigate complaints about health services. Alternative Futures Group Limited (22 001 217) Summary: We will not investigate Mr C's complaint about the way he was treated. This is because the Care Provider has apologised and advised of actions it has taken to ensure it minimises access problems in the future and we could not add to this even if we investigated. London Borough of Redbridge (21 003 724) Summary: We have not investigated Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision to cease payments to him as a 'Shared Lives' carer. This is because Mr X is subject to ongoing criminal proceedings and we consider the matters complained about are inextricably linked to those proceedings. Leicester City Council (21 005 879) Summary: Ms C complains the Council delayed in carrying out repairs after adaptation work. The Council delayed and failed to update Ms C about remedial work. The Council has agreed to review why there were delays and pay Ms C £250 to reflect her time, trouble and distress the failures caused. London Borough of Hillingdon (21 008 031) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's handling of his mother, Mrs Y's, financial assessment during 2021 and early 2022. There was no fault in how the Council financially assessed Mrs Y during 2021 and it was entitled to ask for the further evidence it required. However, since early 2022 the Council has let the matter drift which was fault. It agreed to make a decision and issue Mrs X's financial assessment within one month of this decision. Leicester City Council (22 000 389) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to supply personal protective equipment during a three-month period from November 2021. The Council's apology is sufficient for the injustice caused and we could not add to its investigation or achieve a different outcome by investigating. Gloucestershire County Council (21 006 491) Summary: Mr X complains about his dealings with the Council over domiciliary care for his late mother. Mr X also alleges racial discrimination by carers, sheltered housing staff and the Council. The Ombudsman discontinued the investigation because we could not add to the previous investigation done by the Council. Westward Care Limited (21 010 411) Summary: Mrs X complained about the COVID-19 protocols at her late mother, Mrs M's, retirement village and the amount of time she received 1:1 care. There was no fault in the arrangements put in place by the Provider to prevent the spread of COVID-19 at the retirement village. The Provider was at fault when it failed to set clear review dates which led to some uncertainty. It has already said it should have reviewed Mrs M's package of care more promptly and waived some of the outstanding fees owed. The Ombudsman could achieve nothing further in the way of a personal remedy. The Provider was at fault when it failed to signpost Mrs X to the Ombudsman at the end of its complaint procedures. We have made service improvements to minimise a reoccurrence of the same faults. Warwickshire County Council (21 012 305) Summary: Ms C complained that she does not receive enough support from the Council to meet her needs. We did not find fault with the way in which the Council made decisions about Ms C's support needs. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (21 018 059) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care Mrs Y received from her Care Provider. This is because it is unlikely an investigation could add anything to the response the complainant has already received. North Somerset Council (20 002 740) Summary: Mr B complained about the care and support provided to his late uncle, Mr D, by a Home which was partly funded by the Council via an agreement and the NHS. He said the Home and the Council failed to safeguard his uncle from abuse and ensure he received good care between January to December 2019. He also complained about the effectiveness of the Council's safeguarding investigation. Mr B claimed Mr D suffered unnecessarily and the events led to Mr B experiencing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. We found failings in the care provided to Mr D and he was not always safeguarded from abuse while in the Home. This caused substantial injustice to him and led to Mr B experiencing significant distress. We did not find fault in the way the Council followed its safeguarding procedures or the way it worked with the Home, to ensure it improved. The Council and the Home have agreed to our recommendations and will apologise to Mr B and pay him £600 to acknowledge the distress he experienced. The Council will waive £6179 from the amount Mr D's estate owes for care fees. It will also remind its officers of the importance of acknowledging relatives who hold attorney status when dealing with mental capacity issues. 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