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. Leeds City Council (21 002 320) Summary: Ms X complains the Council has not dealt properly with direct payments to Mrs Y. The Council is at fault because it failed to carry out reviews of the direct payments, delayed a further review and did not provide sufficient support to Mrs Y. The Council has made some service improvements and offered to pay Ms X £1000. This is an appropriate remedy. London Borough of Brent (21 006 872) Summary: Dr X complains the Council failed to deal properly with his late father's care needs from May to November 2020, at times failing to meet them and causing unnecessary distress. The Council did not fail to meet the father's needs. However, it caused avoidable distress by failing to respond to Dr X's request to assign another social worker for his family. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (21 007 374) Summary: Mrs M complained to us that the Council failed to carry out a care assessment of her daughter, as well as a carer assessment, since June 2020. Mrs M said this resulted in them not receiving the support they both needed. The Ombudsman found the Council was at fault for its delay in carrying out these assessments. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Mrs M £2,700 and her daughter £1,800, and put actions in place to avoid a possible reoccurrence. West Berkshire Council (21 013 890) Summary: The Council's complaint responses should have explained the circumstances of Mrs Y's fall in a care home it commissioned. This was fault causing avoidable distress. The Council will apologise for its poor complaint responses. There was no fault in placing Mrs Y in a care home in a different area because the evidence shows her family agreed. Lincolnshire County Council (21 014 642) Summary: The Council was at fault, as it invoiced for more hours of care than were provided for several reasons. The Council has credited the service user for the hours of care that were not provided and this is a satisfactory remedy to the complaint. Leeds City Council (21 015 519) Summary: Ms C says the Council has failed to properly assess her capacity to manage her finances independently. There is no fault in the Council's actions. It has completed an assessment in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Code of Practice. The Ombudsman cannot challenge a professional judgement where there is no procedural fault. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (21 018 382) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to help the complainant register with a GP. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (21 007 570) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council unfairly charged backdated care contributions for her son's care. We consider there is no fault regarding the backdated charge. However, there is evidence of fault in the Council's communications, and we recommended a remedy. Living Comforts Ltd aka Home Instead (21 007 966) Summary: Mrs X complained the provider of her mother, Mrs Y's, home care required an unreasonable period of notice to cancel the contract. There was fault in how the care provider failed to give Mrs Y or her family a copy of the terms and conditions of her care in good time before her care started. Although this did not cause Mrs Y an injustice, it could have done in different circumstances. The Care Provider has reviewed how it provides this information in future. I am satisfied with the action the Care Provider has taken. Newgrange of Cheshunt Limited (21 008 654) Summary: Miss X complained about the care her mother, Mrs Y, received from Newgrange of Cheshunt Limited. The Care Provider was at fault. Staff did not properly follow policies on using a transfer aid and on wound care management whilst providing care to Mrs Y. Staff also did not notify Mrs Y's family about her injury. The Care Provider has recognised its faults and has put measures in place to prevent a recurrence of fault. The Care Provider has also agreed to apologise to Mrs Y and her family for the distress the faults caused them. It will make a symbolic payment of £150 to Mrs Y. In addition, the Care Provider has agreed it will review staff knowledge and understanding in relation to the poor care it delivered to Mrs Y. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (21 013 989) Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed assessing her mother, Mrs Y's care needs and setting up direct payments. The Council was at fault. It delayed assessing Mrs Y's care needs and failed to properly consider her night time support needs. As a result, Mrs Y has had to fund her own care for longer than necessary and the personal budget may not be sufficient to meet her needs. The Council has agreed to review Mrs Y's care needs and personal budget and backdate this as necessary. It has also agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £150 to acknowledge the frustration and time and trouble caused. It will also remind staff of the need to properly assess all care needs, including any need for night time care The North Northumberland Hospice (21 016 410) Summary: We upheld a complaint about end-of-life care. The Care Provider will apologise and review its procedures for record-keeping. London Borough of Lewisham (22 001 015) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to carry out a Care Assessment. The complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The Council has carried out an Assessment and is pursuing the matter further. It is reasonable for the complainant to engage with the Council for the assessment if she is not satisfied. Heathfield House Nursing Homes Ltd (21 010 725) Summary: Mrs X complained about the standard of care provided to her late father Mr G between May and his death in July 2021 while he stayed at Heathfield House Nursing Homes Ltd (the Care Provider). The Care Provider failed to keep clear and comprehensive records which leaves uncertainty about whether it followed Mr G's care plan. The Care Provider should apologise to Mrs X and pay her £150 to recognise the distress and uncertainty this caused. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (21 013 504) Summary: Mr C was unhappy about the time it took to move his (late) father from a residential care home into a more suitable nursing home. We did not find fault with the regards to the Council's actions. Axelbond Limited (21 013 652) Summary: Mr X complains the care provider failed to deduct funded nursing care payments from his mother's weekly care charges. We find fault with the care provider as it has failed to provide clear written information about how it will treat FNC payments. We have made recommendations for the care provider to remedy the injustice caused. London Borough of Newham (22 000 375) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the problems the complainant had renewing her disabled persons freedom pass. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Gloucestershire County Council (21 004 028) Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's handling of her husband's (Mr X) care home placement following his discharge from hospital. There was no fault in the way the Council sought to identify suitable care home placements within Mr X's personal budget nor that it forced Mrs X into agreeing to make top-up payments for the care home of her choice. Cornwall Council (21 007 240) Summary: Mr D complained the Council failed to properly support his grandson when he transitioned from children's services to adult care services. He also says the Council failed to give him information about his grandson's wellbeing. We find the Council delayed assessing Mr D's grandson. It also should have done more to explore what information it could share with Mr D. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. West Sussex County Council (21 009 958) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council charged her wrongly for non-residential care. The Council did not charge Mrs X correctly and in good time, or properly explain what the charges were for. This resulted in avoidable financial loss, distress, and confusion, for which the Council agreed to pay a financial remedy to Mrs X. It will also review the information it provides when arranging non-residential care. Saltwood Care Centre Ltd (21 011 131) Summary: Mr B complained the Care Provider unfairly ended Ms C and Mr D's contract without providing satisfactory reasoning. Mr B says this caused Ms C and Mr D distress in having to move. He also says this caused him distress in having to make the arrangements without satisfactory notice. We do not find the Care Provider caused an injustice by cancelling the contract, but did cause an injustice for not following its policy. The Care Provider has agreed to pay Mr B a sum of money, has reviewed its procedures and will share the final decision with staff. Carol Spinks Homecare Ltd (21 011 142) Summary: Mrs X complains the care provider provided inadequate care to her father between April and July 2021. She also complains about the actions of a particular carer following an incident where paramedics were called. She says the carer provided incorrect information to the paramedics. We find some fault with the care provider for not always providing care in line with the care plan. We have made some recommendations for the care provider to remedy the injustice caused. Wiltshire Council (21 016 438) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Care Home delayed in responding to call-bells. That is because further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. Worcestershire County Council (22 000 290) Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about poor care by a domiciliary care agency and the Council's subsequent investigation. There is not a good reason the complainant did not contact us sooner. Bingley Wingfield Care Limited (22 001 008) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that a Care Home stopped Mr X's visits to a relative. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Care Home's actions to justify investigating. Surrey County Council (21 013 360) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's decision to charge her daughter for care, causing distress and financial loss. We found no fault in the Council's decision making but we found fault in its communications. We recommended the Council take action to prevent injustice to others in future. London Borough of Croydon (21 016 852) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the support the Council provided to the complainant. We would not be able to achieve the outcome the complainant has asked for. Hampshire County Council (20 013 004) Summary: Mrs A complains on behalf of Mr B about the way the Council has dealt with Mr B's direct payment account and its decision to stop payments, and that it has not reviewed Mr B's needs. The Council is at fault because it did not try to contact Mr B's representatives as it should have done, it stopped payments without ensuring Mr B's care needs were still met and has delayed reviewing Mr B's needs. Mr B and his family have had to provide care and support and have suffered distress. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Mr B £250 for distress, pay Mrs A £4000 for distress to herself and Mr B's family, complete Mr B's review/care plan, provide guidance to staff and conduct an audit of service users. 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