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. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (21 011 153) Summary: We do not uphold Mrs X's complaint the Council failed to address her safeguarding concerns about a vulnerable neighbour (Ms Y) and properly address her complaint. The Council took proportionate action and responded appropriately to Ms X's complaint. Lincolnshire County Council (21 012 953) Summary: There is no evidence the Council was responsible for a delay in Mr X leaving hospital. Mr X consistently refused an assessment of his needs and said he would arrange his own care privately when home. Leicestershire County Council (21 017 003) Leicestershire County Council (21 017 003) Westward Care Limited (21 018 101) Summary: Mr Y complains a care provider failed to notify him in writing of the additional care and support it provided to his mother, Mrs X. Mr Y then received an invoice with backdated charges for the period complained about. There is fault because the provider did not give written notification in accordance with Mrs X's contract. However, the records show Mr Y received notification by telephone so the injustice arising from the fault is not significant enough to warrant any remedial action. North Northamptonshire Council (22 000 318) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's adult social care provision to her daughter Miss Y, causing distress and poor mental health. We did not investigate late complaints or premature complaints. We found the Council at fault as it did not pay invoices for a service as necessary. However, we are satisfied it has already provided an appropriate remedy for this. Oxfordshire County Council (22 000 667) Summary: We investigated a complaint about the care a Care Home, Council and Trust provided to Ms G before her death. We found fault with the Trust who did not tell Miss F her mother could decline quickly and what she should expect. The Trust has already remedied this. We also found fault in the Trust's complaint handling; it did not check the facts in the documents it sent to the Care Home. We found no fault with the Council or Care UK. These faults caused distress and confusion to Miss F. We recommended an apology and service improvements to address this injustice. Care UK Community Partnership (22 000 667a) Summary: We investigated a complaint about the care a Care Home, Council and Trust provided to Ms G before her death. We found fault with the Trust who did not tell Miss F her mother could decline quickly and what she should expect. The Trust has already remedied this. We also found fault in the Trust's complaint handling; it did not check the facts in the documents it sent to the Care Home. We found no fault with the Council or Care UK. These faults caused distress and confusion to Miss F. We recommended an apology and service improvements to address this injustice. Highmarket House (22 000 667b) Summary: We investigated a complaint about the care a Care Home, Council and Trust provided to Ms G before her death. We found fault with the Trust who did not tell Miss F her mother could decline quickly and what she should expect. The Trust has already remedied this. We also found fault in the Trust's complaint handling; it did not check the facts in the documents it sent to the Care Home. We found no fault with the Council or Care UK. These faults caused distress and confusion to Miss F. We recommended an apology and service improvements to address this injustice. Oxfordshire County Council (22 002 160) Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into a complaint about the Council's assessment of the complainant's care needs, because it is late. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in how it has managed the complainant's direct payments, and it has offered to reassess the complainant to address this issue. We have therefore completed our investigation. Bridge House (Elmwood) Limited (22 006 717) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Care Provider being unable to provide the kind of care it agreed to. It has agreed to our recommendations to take steps to remedy the injustice the family experienced, in addition to action it had already taken, and so further investigation would not achieve a different outcome. Hampshire County Council (22 006 806) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council social worker failing to ensure a police officer was accompanied aby an appropriate adult. This is because there is another body better placed to consider the complaint and because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. North Yorkshire County Council (22 007 185) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to answer Mr X's questions about his daughter's death. This is because further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (22 007 299) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs Y's neglectful treatment in a care home before her death. The Council has already made an offer of a financial remedy for the distress Mrs X and her sister experienced. We could not achieve a different outcome as the Ombudsman's role is not to award compensation, and it is open to Mrs X to apply to the courts if she wishes to pursue a higher figure. Leicestershire County Council (22 007 560) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint, made on behalf of Mr Y, about the evidence the Council provided to the Court of Protection when the court decided where Mr Y should live. The law does not allow us to investigate what happened in court. London Borough of Hillingdon (21 016 677) Summary: Mrs D complained the Council's care provider failed to provide domiciliary care for her mother as agreed and to a suitable standard during a two-week period in late 2020. We found the care was provided as agreed in most care appointments. However, its carers arrived late on some occasions, and the total amount of care she received was of less duration than agreed. The Council agreed apologise to Mrs X and Mrs D, and reduce the outstanding care costs with £200 to acknowledge the limited loss of care support Mrs X experienced and the limited distress this caused her and Mrs D. Leeds City Council (21 017 741) Summary: Ms B complained that, since October 2021, the Council had not adhered to a communications protocol agreed with her. We found there were several occasions when the Council failed to comply with the protocol causing Ms B distress and inconvenience. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to make a payment to Ms B and issue a reminder to staff to ensure they comply with the protocol. B & M Care/Colleycare Ltd (21 018 668) Summary: Mrs X complained about the standard of care received by her husband Mr X while on a respite stay at a care home. We have found fault. There is evidence that the home failed to consider Mr X's needs fully when he was admitted and did not transfer Mr X's toiletries with him when he moved rooms. Mrs X says Mr X was very distressed upon leaving the home and that this has in turn caused her distress and uncertainty about the general standard of care he received. Cumbria County Council (22 001 452) Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's decision to treat his wife as having deprived herself of capital in order avoid care charges when they gave their home to a daughter. The Council was at fault over the way it made its decision. It therefore needs to reconsider its decision to make sure there is no fault. Lancashire County Council (22 006 447) Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaint about the way the Council considered her complaints about the care and support she received. This is because the Council has explained what happened and although Ms B disagrees we are satisfied with the remedy provided. Further investigation is not warranted. London Borough of Islington (22 006 977) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. London Borough of Croydon (22 007 101) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint, made by Mrs Y, about the Council's invoicing for 2021 reablement care, and delay in its complaint process. The Council has withdrawn the invoice and apologised to the family. There is not enough unremedied injustice to Mr X or his family to warrant us investigating and pursuing any further remedy. We do not investigate complaints about councils' complaint process where we are not investigating the core issue which gave rise to the complaint, so will not investigate this part of the complaint. Wokingham Borough Council (21 016 228) Summary: We upheld a complaint about Optalis, which provides social care services for a council. Optalis failed to make reasonable adjustments for Ms X and failed to provide a service in line with the accessible information standard. This caused Ms X avoidable distress. The council will apologise, make Ms X a symbolic payment and ensure Optalis reviews its procedures. Athena Healthcare (New Brighton One) Limited (20 013 713) Summary: Ms B complains about the standard of care her father received while resident at a care home ("the Home"). Ms B says staff did not properly manage medications, complete detailed care plans or provide adequate personal care, among other concerns. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Home's care of Mr Y, including medication management, care planning, personal care and record keeping. Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (21 007 057) Summary: There is no evidence the care provider failed to provide a good standard of care to Mrs X. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (21 014 673) Summary: Mr and Mrs B say the Council failed to arrange accommodation for their son and unnecessarily delayed making the required arrangements to allow a suitable placement to go ahead. The Council was not at fault for delays in the process to allow an identified placement to go ahead. However, the Council's communications with Mr and Mrs B were at times overoptimistic and at other times did not provide sufficient information. An apology to Mr and Mrs B, payment to reflect their raised expectations and time and trouble and arrangement of a meeting with them to discuss options going forward is satisfactory remedy. Cheshire East Council (21 015 521) Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to provide her with appropriate support when she was evicted from her property in 2021. She said it has then failed to resolve her homelessness. The Council was not at fault. It was the court's decision to evict Ms X in 2021 and since then the Council has provided Ms X with appropriate support. There is no fault in how it has handled her homelessness situation. London Borough of Barnet (22 006 517) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X's contact with his mother. The matters he complains about are subject to court proceedings and only the court can make a decision. Nottinghamshire County Council (21 009 745) Summary: We uphold Mrs J's complaint about the care and treatment provided to her husband by the Council and the Trust. We found fault with the handling of Mr J's discharge, the management of his care and needs and consideration of Mrs J's needs as a carer. This fault caused Mr and Mrs J significant distress. The Council and Trust will apologise to Mr and Mrs J and pay a financial remedy. They will also take action to prevent similar problems occurring in the future. Devon County Council (21 016 059) Summary: Ms X complains the Council has failed to meet her assessed need for care and support since November 2020. The Council accepts it has failed to meet Ms X's needs for a significant periods of time. That is a service failure which has caused injustice to Ms X. The Council needs to apologise, pay financial redress and take action to improve its record keeping. Rutland County Council (22 006 318) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care provided to Ms X's mother by her care provider. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Liberty Healthcare Solutions Limited (22 006 734) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care Mrs Y received in a care home and the Care Provider reneging on its agreement to refund care fees. Complaints about the care itself are late, and we could not achieve the outcome Ms X seeks as there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Care Provider's decision not to refund fees. Brighton & Hove City Council (22 007 888) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care given to Ms X's mother. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Slough Borough Council (21 017 018) Summary: Ms X complained the Council has delayed in providing a disabled facilities grant (DFG) for a stairlift at her property. As a result Ms X has been unable to access the first floor of her property independently for over a year. London Borough of Enfield (21 009 856) Summary: X complained the Council failed to carry out an adequate adult social care assessment of their needs. As a result there cannot be proper consideration given to their housing situation and their social care needs have not been met. There was fault by the Council and it should make a payment to X in recognition of that. Plymouth City Council (22 007 129) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about future care costs. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Mr S G & Mrs A Poole (21 006 410) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an incident that happened in a care home. It is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the care provider. 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