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. Kent County Council (20 006 384) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms B's complaint about the Council detaining her mother, Mrs D, against her will. This is because the Court of Protection has determined where Mrs D should live and only a court can make this decision. Westminster City Council (20 013 194) Summary: Mrs C says the contractor, acting on behalf of the Council, failed to properly assess her application for a stairlift, released personal information about her to her neighbour without permission and failed to consult her representative, as a freeholder of the building, before declining her application. The Council was not at fault for how it considered the application for a stairlift. The contractor acting on behalf of the Council breached data protection regulations by releasing personal information about Mrs C to her neighbour and failed to follow the right process for consulting freeholders. That did not affect the decision on the application. An apology, payment to Mrs C and the reminder to the contractor about the process to follow is satisfactory remedy. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (21 013 858) Summary: Ms X complains the Council prevented her from accessing social care and support. We have not found the Council at fault for failing to help Ms X engage with the process. We have found faults in how the Council ensured suitable advocacy was in place, some of which caused Ms X an injustice. We have not found the Council actively sought to restrict Ms X's access to social care services. London Borough of Hillingdon (21 015 857) Summary: Mrs Y complained about her mother, Mrs X's, social care and the Council's safeguarding investigation. There was no fault in Mrs X's care or how the Council carried out its safeguarding investigation. There was fault in how the Care Provider, acting for the Council, increased the top-up fees charged to Mrs X's husband. The Council should apologise, refund the extra fees charged, review similar cases and review its policies. Lincolnshire County Council (22 005 699) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to Ms X's request for help with adaptations and repairs to her bathroom via a disabled facilities grant. The Council is not responsible for dealing with applications for disabled facilities grants or housing repairs, which are matters for the local district council to decide. There is not enough evidence of fault on the Council's part to warrant investigation. Surrey County Council (22 006 610) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial assessment for adult social care charges, because there is no evidence of fault in the Council's decision making. London Borough of Croydon (21 017 001) Summary: The Council acknowledged it was funding a health care service at Ms A's previous care home as part of the home's standard provision but that did not make a difference to the outcome here. The break in services was a consequence of long waiting lists and not the funding question. Leicester City Council (21 018 737) Summary: Miss A complained about a hospital discharging her mother from a mental health hospital too soon and about a lack of follow-up care in the community. The Ombudsmen find no fault by the Council or Trust. There is evidence of suitable planning before Mrs B left hospital, and proportionate reviews after she returned home. London Borough of Bexley (22 002 184) Summary: We did not uphold Mrs X's complaint about a refusal to cover the full cost of live-in care for Mrs Y. We found the Council was entitled under case law and under Paragraph 10.27 of Care and Support Statutory Guidance to have regard to its finances. There was one example of misleading communication which was fault causing avoidable confusion. The Council will apologise and instruct relevant staff not to repeat this comment. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (22 002 879) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed in sending her application for Attendance Allowance to the Department for Work and Pensions. The Council was at fault for a six week delay. This meant Mrs X received her benefit later than she reasonably could have done. The Council has already apologised for the delay but it will also pay Mrs X £371.10 to reflect the benefit she missed. Surrey County Council (22 005 461) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to charge for care. That is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Cambridgeshire County Council (22 006 516) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not properly assessing Mrs X's care and support needs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Hampshire County Council (22 006 712) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial assessment for adult social care charges, because there is no evidence of fault in the Council's decision making. Cornwall Council (22 006 825) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision to include his mother Mrs X's former home and the proceeds of its sale when calculating her care fee contributions. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's decision-making process to warrant an investigation. Any Council delay in making its decision has not resulted in a significant personal injustice justifying investigation. Derbyshire County Council (22 007 136) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the placement of Mrs Y's room in a care home. We could not come to sound conclusions about the care provider's actions and whether Mrs Y experienced injustice due to the placement of her room. We could not achieve a meaningful remedy for Mr X. By Your Side Ltd (21 003 599) Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of him and his late mother about how the Care Provider charged them for home care. The Care Provider was at fault for not clearly explaining the care charges, for sending insufficiently detailed invoices and for failing to readvertise for live-in care. It should apologise to Mr X and pay him £100 to acknowledge the frustration and uncertainty caused. The Care Provider was also at fault for its care planning, but this did not cause them a significant personal injustice. East Sussex County Council (21 011 082) Summary: Ms D complains the Council and NHS Sussex refuse to pay for the full cost of her mother, Ms M's, mental health aftercare. We have upheld the complaint and recommended remedies for Ms M and service improvements for the organisations. The Council and NHS Sussex accept our recommendations, so we have completed our investigation. Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (21 014 493) Summary: It was not fault for the Council to suggest different ways in which Mr X might use his funded hours to achieve his desired outcomes. Cornwall Council (21 016 350) Summary: Ms C complained the Council had wrongly placed her mother in a residential care home and failed to tell her about the care costs. She said it failed to consider her views properly, made errors, and fabricated her views when it made its best interest decision. We did not find enough evidence of fault in the process the Council followed. It therefore reached decisions it was entitled to make, and we cannot criticise the merits of decisions properly made. There was not enough evidence to make a finding on Ms C's allegation her views had been fabricated. London Borough of Croydon (21 016 602) Summary: The Council failed to ensure the appropriate funding was approved for Mrs X when she was discharged from hospital. It ordered the recommended equipment for her but could not explain why some of it was not delivered. The Council's response to Ms B's complaint was inadequate. The Council agrees to apologise to Mrs X, reimburse the amount of funding it failed to secure for her, and pay a sum which recognises the distress caused. Kent County Council (21 016 787) Summary: Mr X complains the Council's care provider, Expertise Homecare (Ashford), failed to meet his late mother's needs, putting her at risk of harm. His mother did not always receive person centred care and was put at risk of harm by some of her care workers. This caused avoidable distress to her and Mr X. The Council needs to apologise to Mr X for the distress caused to him. London Borough of Islington (21 017 685) Summary: Mrs X complains on behalf of her deceased aunt about the Council's safeguarding investigation. She says this had a significant impact on her mental health and has caused the family trauma. We find the Council at fault, and this fault caused Mrs X injustice. The Council will apologise to Mrs X, make a payment to her, and make improvements to its service to prevent this happening in future. London Borough of Barnet (22 001 430) Summary: We have decided not to investigate the complaint as it relates to the actions of a registered social housing provider and is outside of the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (22 005 243) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the level of care provided by Mr X's parent's care provider, and of poor complaint handling. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. In addition, we are unlikely to find fault with the Council's complaint handling. Leicester City Council (22 006 372) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's adult safeguarding enquiries. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Kent County Council (22 006 870) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the standard of care provided to Mrs X's late husband and of the Council charging for the cost of his care. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Dorset Council (21 012 345) Summary: Mr B complained that his mother, Mrs C, should not have been charged a top-up fee for accommodation that he says should have been funded under Section 117 aftercare. We found Dorset Council and NHS Dorset were at fault in not preparing a Section 117 or CPA care plan for Mrs C's mental health needs when she was discharged from hospital, and in communication with Mr B about charges. We found this caused uncertainty to Mr B. We have made recommendations to the Council and NHS Dorset to remedy the failings found. London Borough of Hounslow (21 017 029) Summary: The Council failed to properly consider Mr X's care and accommodation needs from July 2021 onwards. Leeds City Council (22 004 558) Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X's complaint about the action taken by the Council and the ICB after they raised safeguarding concerns about a Care Home. This is because further investigation by the Ombudsmen is unlikely to add to the Council and the ICB's joint investigation. Further, we cannot achieve the outcomes Mr and Mrs X are seeking. Derbyshire County Council (21 012 109) Summary: Mrs B complained about the end of life care and support provided to her late mother, Mrs C, by the Council and the Trust after her mother left hospital in late 2020. We found fault by the Council as it did not review Mrs C's care and support plan when her needs changed. Because of this the care Mrs C received did not always meet expected standards. The Trust did not complete a formal assessment or liaise with Mrs C's doctor when it decided she was not eligible for fast track healthcare funding. This left Mrs B with uncertainty about her mother's entitlement to healthcare funding. The Council and the Trust have agreed to our recommendations and will apologise to Mrs B and her siblings, make acknowledgement payments, and take steps to improve. Trafford Council (21 013 917) Summary: There was fault in the Council's failure to communicate with Mrs B and Mrs D about a change in care provider. This caused distress to Mrs B and Mrs D. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and Mrs D and pay them £250. Monarch Healthcare Limited (21 017 241) Summary: Mrs X complained that Monarch Healthcare Limited failed to keep her mother, Mrs Y safe during her stay at Clifton Manor Residential Home in November 2021. The care home was not at fault for Mrs Y's fall. However, the failure to return the unused milkshakes amounts to fault. This fault has caused an injustice for which the care home has agreed to apologise and reimburse Mrs X. Dovehaven Residential Care Home Limited (22 005 533) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a care provider's refusal to deduct funded nursing care payments from Mrs A's care fees. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Reading Borough Council (22 005 893) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not telling Mrs X charges were accruing for her mother's care. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and significant injustice. In addition, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Redcar & Cleveland Council (22 006 398) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's assessment of his mental health. The Council has apologised for errors made and corrected its report. This is the outcome we would have sought had it not already been provided. There is no different outcome an Ombudsman investigation would achieve on other parts of the complaint, and not enough evidence of fault by the Council which would have changed the outcome of Mr X's request for support, to warrant investigation. Mr X also complains about the management of his housing which is outside our jurisdiction so we cannot investigate. Trafford Council (22 006 456) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about deprivation of assets to avoid care charges, because there is no evidence of fault in the Council's decision making. Worcestershire County Council (22 006 582) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council requesting documentation Mrs C's representatives say does not exist. This is because we cannot interpret law and it would be reasonable for Mrs C's representatives to challenge the Council's decision to include her property in her financial assessment in a court. Serenta Home Care Limited (21 018 925) Summary: Mr Y complains about a care provider's decision to increase fees for the care it delivers to his wife, Mrs Y. He also complains about the withdrawal of visiting sheets and the provision of care from male staff and those who he considers as lacking in experience. There is no fault in the provider's actions which cause a significant injustice to Mr and Mrs Y. London Borough of Sutton (22 002 488) Summary: Mr X complained the Council had not provided adequate Adult Social Care services to his son Mr Y, causing distress. We did investigate complaints about matters that arose more than 12 months ago or that were premature. We found the Council at fault for delay in completing a specialist autism assessment for Mr Y. We recommended it pay Mr X £500 for the distress and uncertainty suffered by him and Mr Y and arrange the assessment. East Sussex County Council (22 004 080) Summary: The Council should have recognised far sooner that it should support Mr X with managing his finances. It should also have responded more quickly to his complaint. The Council has now agreed to waive the debt which accrued most recently and has apologised to Mr X. It will also make a payment to Mr X in recognition that its failure to respond promptly to the complaint caused additional distress to Mr X and his family. Rushcliffe Borough Council (22 005 576) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to process Ms X's Disabled Facilities Grant. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Wokingham Borough Council (22 005 786) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial contribution to adult social care costs because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council. London Borough of Bexley (22 006 046) Summary: We will not investigate Ms C's complaint about the Council's safeguarding of her late mother's Mrs B's friend. This is because we could not provide Ms C with a different outcome to that she received from the Council last year. Norfolk County Council (22 006 331) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care provided to Ms B by her care company. This is because the Council has agreed to follow up Ms B's complaint if she agrees and gives consent for her information and data to be shared. We could achieve no more. London Borough of Hillingdon (22 006 354) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information not being provided about a court case (to decide where the complainant's family member should live). This is because the case has already been decided in court, so we have no remit to intervene. Staffordshire County Council (22 006 530) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Council completing a financial assessment. This is because the accepted delays have not caused any significant injustice to Mr X to justify an investigation. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (21 011 284) Summary: Mr A has complained about the actions of a Trust and Council in relation to his mother's discharge from hospital. I find fault with the Trust and Council's actions and they have agreed with my recommendations to provide a remedy to Mr A. 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