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. NHS South West London Clinical Commissioning Group (20 000 380b) Summary: 1. Mr and Mrs X complained about faults by the Council, Trust and CCG relating to health and social care services for their daughter, Miss X. This includes: failing to refer Miss X for supported living accommodation and to place important documents on her files; flawed planning and provision of aftercare under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983; failing to provide relevant information; and inadequate support for Mr and Mrs X as Miss X's carers. Leicester City Council (21 006 194) Summary: Mrs B needed adaptations to her house to enable her to use the bathroom. The Council has not shown that it considered all the factors when it chose between two different proposals for the works and this was fault. It is therefore not certain whether the decision was correctly made. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and review the decision, taking all the factors into account. London Borough of Lambeth (21 008 465) Summary: Mr Y complained the Council did not provide adult social care support, which meant he was homeless, destitute and his mental health deteriorated. There were faults in the assessments of Mr Y's care needs and in the Council's human rights assessment. However, there is some uncertainty about whether the outcome would have been different but for those faults. The Council should pay Mr Y £500 to recognise that uncertainty and review its processes to prevent recurrence. Lancashire County Council (21 012 896) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council incorrectly assessed the value of her late mother, Mrs Y's, share of their jointly owned property when it carried out Mrs Y's financial assessment. This meant it charged Mrs Y more in care home fees than it should have. We have ended our investigation as the Council had already agreed to accept a lower payment from Mrs X in settlement of the debt. We are unlikely to be able to achieve anything more by further investigation. Liverpool City Council (21 014 876) Summary: The Council has proposed a suitable remedy for Ms X's complaint about the care provided to her mother. Trafford Council (21 016 998) Summary: Mrs E complained the Council refused to reduce the land charge on her late mother's property after it awarded a Disabled Facilities Grant. We do not find the Council was at fault. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (22 001 781) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about respite care provided to her late husband, Mr X. That is because we are unlikely to add anything further to the Council's investigation. Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (22 002 595) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint, made on behalf of Mrs X, about the Council-commissioned care provider losing and not reimbursing her for lost possessions and clothes. There is no additional evidence regarding Mrs X's possessions at the home which would allow us to reach a different outcome and find the Council or care firm liable for Mrs X's losses. Liability for property loss is a legal issue which can only be determined by an insurer or by the courts. It would be reasonable for Mrs X to pursue the complaint at court to achieve the financial compensation sought. London Borough of Croydon (21 013 605) Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of her son, Mr Y, about the Council's decision not to fund a supported living placement for him. Mr Y was upset about this as he needs to increase his independence. He did not want to move to another family environment as recommended by the panel that refused funding. Ms X and Mr Y have now found a suitable placement which is not supported living. We therefore find the Council was not at fault. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (22 000 705) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the way the Council treated Mr and Mrs Y when they took Mr Z back to their home during the Covid19 pandemic. This is because further investigation by the Ombudsman could not add to the Council's investigation and we cannot investigate matters that have been to court. St. Albans Care Limited (22 000 874) Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs B's complaint about care provided to Mr B's late mother, Mrs D. This is because further investigation could not add to the Care Provider's response or make a different finding. We cannot now provide a remedy to Mrs D for any fault uncovered by an investigation. Warwickshire County Council (22 001 109) Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaint about the Council's refusal to reimburse her the agreed amount she paid for her mother's, Mrs C's care in 2014. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion and investigate now. Oxfordshire County Council (22 001 392) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to support Ms X's application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome she wants. Kent County Council (22 001 433) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a lack of support for the complainant. This is because the problem has been resolved. Staffordshire County Council (22 001 437) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about direct payments. This is because the complaint is late and we do not have good reasons to make an exception to consider it now. Northumberland County Council (20 014 396) Summary: Mr X and his parents, Mr and Mrs Y complained about the Council's failure to ensure adaptations to their property, funded by a Disabled Facilities Grant, were carried out to an acceptable standard and related matters. We have found the Council to be at fault because it did not properly record variations to the Schedule of Works. The Council has agreed to apologise for the frustration caused to the complainants. We have not identified any other areas of fault. The Ombudsman is unable to interfere with the Council's professional assessment that the overall standard of the adaptation was acceptable. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (21 014 153) Summary: The Council was not at fault in the provision of care to Mrs X. The extra care service could no longer meet her needs which required 24-hour care in a residential setting. Essex County Council (22 002 031) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful Blue Badge application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Derbyshire County Council (22 002 358) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X's contact with his friend in a care home. This is because the Council have agreed to complete an assessment and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Kernow Care Services Limited (21 011 569) Summary: Mr X complained about some of the care Kernow Care Services Ltd provided his mother, Mrs M, matters about communication and its decision to terminate her care package. There was no fault in the Care Provider's actions. Lincolnshire County Council (20 009 170) Summary: Mrs A complains about the care of her mother, Mrs B at a care home. She has also complained about a council's safeguarding enquiries. We found fault in relation to the Home's lack of mask wearing. We did not find fault with the other issues in this complaint. London Borough of Sutton (21 013 254) Summary: Ms X complains about delays by the Council in concluding and sending her copies of its assessments. I have found fault in the Council's actions because delays incurred by the Council were unreasonable to Ms X. These delays caused an injustice to Ms X as she was later deemed eligible for Council support that she did not receive until it concluded its assessment. Further, Ms X spent time chasing and complaining to the Council. The Council has agreed to our recommendations. Coventry City Council (21 014 350) Summary: Mr and Mrs A complain about the handling of their son, B's Continuing Healthcare assessments by the Council. We will not investigate as the Council has responded appropriately and we would not recommend any further action on its part. 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