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 (20 013 485) Summary: Mrs B complained about the care her mother received while she was resident at Paisley Lodge, a residential care home operated by Indigo Care Services Ltd using the trading name Orchard Care Homes. The placement was arranged and part-funded by the Council before Mrs C went on to self-fund for a time. Part of Mrs B's complaint is also about charges made for care. Indigo Care Services Ltd (21 017 365) Summary: Mrs B complained about the care her mother received while she was resident at Paisley Lodge, a residential care home operated by Indigo Care Services Ltd using the trading name Orchard Care Homes. The placement was arranged and part-funded by the Council before Mrs C went on to self-fund for a time. Part of Mrs B's complaint is also about charges made for care. Leicestershire County Council (21 012 275) Summary: Mrs Z complains about the way the Council conducted a financial assessment for her daughter, Miss X. We have not found fault with the Council's actions. London Borough of Redbridge (21 012 979) Summary: We did not find fault in how a Trust communicated details about a patient's hospital discharge to a care agency. We found fault by a Council when it failed to complete a scheduled carer visit. This led to a hospital readmission. We also found fault by the Trust with its record keeping. However, we did not find there was a link from the fault to the complainant's claimed injustice that her mother caught COVID-19 and died during this hospital admission. We have recommended actions to the Trust and the Council to address the service failings. We have also recommended apologies and a financial remedy to recognise the distress the faults caused the complainant. Warwickshire County Council (21 014 615) Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not deal with a Disabled Facilities Grant properly. The Council is at fault because it did not consider the duties it owed to Mr X properly. The Council has offered to apologise, make service improvements, update a Child and Family Assessment, consider any evidence of adaption costs including whether any duty was owed under Section 17 of the Children's Act 1989 and Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and pay Mr X £300 for time and trouble. The Council should also pay Mr X £500 for distress and provide a report. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 016 909) Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to deal properly with the charges for his mother's care, resulting in it charging her more than she can afford to pay. The Council failed to resolve questions about his mother's mental capacity. It also failed to deal properly with a third-party top-up agreement, resulting in his mother paying a top-up which was not sustainable. The Council needs to apologise, refund the top-up and pay financial redress to Mr X and his mother. Sunderland City Council (22 000 856) Summary: We will not investigate a complaint about a Council's delay in completing a needs assessment or continuing healthcare checklist following a hospital discharge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of significant injustice linked to any faults with the process. Sheffield City Council (22 004 804) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge. This is because the Council will reconsider the application and do a face-to-face mobility assessment. Trafford Council (22 004 813) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about Mr C's direct payment account. This is because the court has decided the matters and we cannot consider any matters which have been before a court. London Borough of Ealing (21 003 888) Summary: Mrs B has complained that the Council did not properly consider her difficulty walking when refusing a Blue Badge. The Ombudsman has found fault in that the Council did not take all relevant factors into account when conducting a telephone assessment and review. However, the Council has since carried out a face-to-face assessment which the Ombudsman considers a suitable remedy for any injustice from the earlier assessments. Suffolk County Council (21 009 409) Summary: The Council did not provide full information about the care fees Mr X was to pay and failed to carry out a prompt financial assessment. Mr X received the care and owes a debt to the Council. The Council acknowledged that its inaction caused Mr and Mrs X to lose the opportunity to make a different decision about the care home chosen for Mr X and whether Mrs X could afford the third party top up fees. The Council agreed to make a payment in recognition of that and of the stress and inconvenience caused. Medway Council (21 016 583) Summary: Mr X complains the Council's care provider, Brabyns House, failed to secure his late mother's possessions after she died, resulting in them being lost or destroyed. Brabyns House accepts it did not act carefully before disposing of the possessions, which had significant sentimental value and cannot be replaced. The Council needs to apologise, pay financial redress and work with Brabyns House to make sure it has procedures in place to prevent this from happening again. Jasmine Healthcare Limited (22 001 763) Summary: Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaints about care provided to her parents, Mr and Mrs D. This is because further investigation could not add to the Care Providers responses or make a different finding of the kind Ms B wants. Bayliss and Wilcox Community Support Ltd (22 004 137) Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaint about the actions of her former Care Provider. This is because further investigation could not add to the Care Provider's response or make a finding of the kind Ms B wants. There are other agencies and organisations it would be reasonable for Ms B to ask to consider her concerns. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (18 006 752) Summary: We found fault by the Council, Trust and ICB in terms of the care and support they provided to a man with complex needs. We recommend these organisations carry out a thorough reassessment of his needs and put in place a comprehensive care plan that sets out how they will meet these needs. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (21 002 476) Summary: We found staff from the Nursing Home failed to take Mrs U to the toilet when she asked. The Nursing Home also did not keep full and accurate records. By not taking Mrs U to the toilet when she asked staff were not adhering to her care plan and this affected her human right to be treated with dignity. Poor record keeping hindered our investigation and means we cannot provide Mrs U's daughter, Ms M, with a clear answer to her complaint. We also found the Council did not update its access system and sent a male carer which was not in Mrs U's care plan. We are satisfied with the steps it took to remedy the injustice to Ms M. We recommend the Nursing Home apologise, make service improvements and a time and trouble payment to Ms M to address the faults we identified. London Borough of Havering (21 004 089) Summary: There was no fault in the Council's safeguarding investigation. There was fault by the Council when it failed to follow up Mrs B's request to see oral hygiene charts and to meet with her to discuss its investigation. The Council has agreed to take the action recommended to remedy the injustice caused to Mrs B. Essex County Council (21 004 573) Summary: Mrs B and Mrs C complained about the way the Trust cared for their late father, Mr D, when he was in hospital in December 2021 and contracted COVID-19. They also complained about the way the Council and Trust dealt with Mr D's discharge to a care home, and about Mr D's care at the Home. We found fault in the way the Trust communicated with the Home and Mr D's family. This caused Mrs B and Mrs C unnecessary distress. We have not found fault in the other issues complained about. The Trust has agreed to explain what actions it has taken to learn from these events. Cedars Place Care Home (21 004 573a) Summary: Mrs B and Mrs C complained about the way the Trust cared for their late father, Mr D, when he was in hospital in December 2021 and contracted COVID-19. They also complained about the way the Council and Trust dealt with Mr D's discharge to a care home, and about Mr D's care at the Home. We found fault in the way the Trust communicated with the Home and Mr D's family. This caused Mrs B and Mrs C unnecessary distress. We have not found fault in the other issues complained about. The Trust has agreed to explain what actions it has taken to learn from these events. Reading Borough Council (21 005 772) Summary: The Council was at fault for delay reviewing Mr X's care plan but I do not consider this fault caused Mr X an injustice. The Council's delay progressing Mr X's need for a Disabled Facilities Grant is fault. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Mr X £3,000 in recognition of the injustice caused. Willows Care Home (Romford) Limited (21 007 441) Summary: The care provider delayed in notifying Mrs X's family of her condition in a timely manner. The delay caused considerable distress and lost the family the opportunity to be with their mother at the end of her life: the care provider will make a consolatory payment accordingly. The care provider acknowledges staff did not always make accurate records and will ensure it complies with that requirement in future: there is no evidence that failure of itself caused injustice to Mrs X but it did cause distress to her family for which the care provider has apologised. Thurrock Council (21 009 445) Summary: X complained about poor service and poor communication from the Council's adult social care teams. The Council was at fault. It did not respond appropriately to reported safeguarding concerns, did not comply with an agreed reasonable adjustment and communicated with X poorly. The Council has agreed to consider the safeguarding concerns and keep X updated of any action taken, apologise to X and pay them £150 in recognition of the frustration and distress caused. Devon County Council (21 009 467) Summary: Mrs B complains the Council declined to move her son, Y, to an appropriate placement closer to home, following concerns about his existing accommodation. She says the Council suggested accommodation that was not suitable or in line with professional advice. This led to Y living in his existing accommodation for longer than he should have done. The Ombudsman does not find fault in how the Council considered the suitability of accommodation or for delays in moving Y. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (21 009 619) Summary: Ms B complains the Council initiated a safeguarding investigation into unfounded allegations of financial abuse against a service user, Mr Y. She says the Council suspended her direct payments and her bank accounts were frozen, leaving her destitute. The Ombudsman does not find fault in how the Council conducted the safeguarding investigation or stopped direct payments. North Yorkshire County Council (21 011 088) Summary: Mrs X complains on her own and her mother's behalf about the Council's handling of their needs and care assessments. There was no evidence of fault in the Council's approach. It remains open to Mrs X and Mrs Y to meet with the Council to resolve any outstanding issues and progress needs and carers assessments. North Yorkshire County Council (21 011 111) Summary: Mrs X complains on her own and her mother's behalf about the Council's handling of their needs and care assessments. There was no evidence of fault in the Council's approach. It remains open to Mrs X and Mrs Y to meet with the Council to resolve any outstanding issues and progress needs and carers assessments. West Sussex County Council (21 012 375) Summary: Mrs X complained, on behalf of her mother Mrs Y, about the poor standard of care provided to Mrs Y by a Care Home. We found the Council at fault. We recommended it apologise to Mrs X and Mrs Y, pay Mrs X £500 for distress, pay Mrs Y £700 for distress, and act to prevent recurrence. Ideal Carehomes (Number One) Limited (21 013 311) Summary: Mrs X complained the care home failed to provide adequate care for an illness her mother Mrs Y was suffering from, during her respite stay. Mrs X said Mrs Y suffered unnecessarily during her stay and subsequently died. We do not find fault with the care providers actions. Cheshire West & Chester Council (21 015 191) Summary: We did not uphold complaints about inaccurate records or a lack of carer support because the Council carried out assessments of Mr Y's needs and a carer's assessment for Ms X in line with the Care Act 2014. We were satisfied the records were accurate. London Borough of Newham (21 015 655) Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council supported her with her care needs and housing and in particular complained the Council failed to properly assess her needs. We have ended our investigation as we cannot add to the Council's investigation or achieve a meaningful outcome for Ms X. Essex County Council (22 003 958) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to complete a financial assessment and for delays in its complaint handling. This is because further investigation will not lead to a different outcome. Norfolk County Council (22 004 417) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a disabled persons' travel pass. This is because the Council will do a further assessment. Staffordshire County Council (22 004 593) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure not to include Ms B in her sister's, Ms C's, best interests decision making process. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with actions taken by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. London Borough of Haringey (21 011 508) Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of Ms Y. He complains about a delay in providing care and support to Ms Y, providing reablement rather than direct payments without agreement from Ms Y and providing a care plan and direct payments which do not meet Ms Y's needs. The Council is at fault as it delayed in progressing Ms Y's assessment and did not consult Ms Y when providing reablement and ensure it met her needs. This caused avoidable distress to Ms Y which the Council has agreed to remedy by apologising and making a payment of £300 to Ms Y. The Council will also remind officers of the need to make person centred decisions when offering reablement. Bath and North East Somerset Council (21 014 981) Summary: We found the Council and HCRG Care Group failed to inform Mr C's family that the care agency supporting him would be unable to do so on a long-term basis. This meant that, when the care agency withdrew care, Mr C's family were given very little time to arrange alternative care. The Council and HCRG Care Group will apologise for this and pay a financial remedy to Mr C's daughter, Mrs B, in recognition of the distress and uncertainty this caused. HCRG Care Group will also review its procedures to prevent similar problems occurring in future. HC-One No.1 Limited (22 003 745) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a care home not completing a Continuing Healthcare Checklist. That is because it has agreed to complete the checklist therefore further investigation will not lead to a different outcome. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (21 005 229) Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaint about the care her late mother received or the Council's safeguarding investigation into her concerns. This is because further investigation by the Ombudsman could not add to the Council's investigation or make a finding of the kind Ms B wants. Sheffield City Council (21 010 477) Summary: I have ended our investigation into this complaint because the Council has recently begun an independent review of the care provider and service Ms X complained about. Further investigation by us could achieve nothing more. Reading Borough Council (21 011 511) Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council chose his mother, Ms Y's, care home and reviewed its suitability. There was no fault in the way the Council chose the care home. The Council was at fault for delay in reviewing Ms Y's care and support plan. This did not cause Ms Y an injustice as she was settled at the care home and it was meeting her needs. However it caused Mr X frustration and meant he went to time and trouble to chase the review. The Council has already apologised to Mr X. In addition, it has agreed to pay him £100 to acknowledge the frustration and time and trouble he was caused. The Council has already reviewed its procedures to prevent a recurrence of the fault. B & M Investments Limited (22 002 828) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Care Home was responsible for losing his father's hearing aids. That is because the court deals with matters of liability. Kent County Council (22 003 647) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a safeguarding concern raised in relation to his friend, Mr Y. This is because an investigation by this office would not be able to add to the explanation and response already provided by the Council on this matter. Care UK Community Partnerships Limited (22 003 818) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a care home's actions. This is because it is unlikely an investigation will lead to a different outcome as there is insufficient evidence of fault. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (22 003 886) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to tell Mr D's family his placement had been made permanent in 2019. This is because Ms C knew of the increase in charges in 2019 and could have come to the Ombudsman before now if she was concerned about the actions taken by the Council. There is no good reason to exercise discretion and investigate this late complaint now. Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (22 004 133) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council. 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