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. Warwickshire County Council (20 008 159) Summary: Mr D complained about the standard of care his son receives in a care home arranged by the Council; the Council's decision not to move his son; and its delay in responding to his complaint. We found there was delay which caused Mr D distress and time and trouble. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy this. Manchester City Council (21 015 229) Summary: Mrs B says the Council misled her about the charges for her care package when setting up a direct payment and refused to communicate with her representative. The evidence shows both the assessed charge and additional top up fee were discussed with Mrs B and her family although the Council failed to discuss the option of a cheaper care package. There was also some confusion around what information could be shared with Miss C. An apology, reminder to officers and training or guidance on data protection is satisfactory remedy. Plymouth City Council (21 015 773) Summary: Mr Y complained that his father was assaulted by a carer and that the organisations did not do enough to safeguard him. We did not find fault with the Council, the care agency or the care home in relation to investigations and safeguarding enquiries they undertook. We found there was fault by the Council in relation to the time it took to complete a care needs assessment, but the Council's actions remedied any injustice. We did not find fault with the care provided by the Home or the Council. Staffordshire County Council (21 016 755) Summary: A disabled woman complained that the Council gave flawed advice which led to her father incurring wasted costs on plans for an extension which could not be implemented. But we will not investigate this matter because the complaint has been made late. West Sussex County Council (21 017 338) Summary: Ms X complains on behalf of Mr Y about how the Council has dealt with his request for an alternative placement. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council reviewed Mr Y's care needs and dealt his request to move to an alternative placement. The Council is at fault as it delayed in responding to Ms X's complaint but this did not cause significant injustice to Ms X. Bath and North East Somerset Council (22 000 909) Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Council. It was legally entitled to recover an overpayment of benefit from a service user, who had capacity to manage his finances. Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (22 007 709) Summary: We will not investigate the way Mr C's Care Provider treated his sister Ms D. This is because the Care Provider's actions have not caused Ms D a significant enough injustice to warrant an ombudsman investigation. We Do Recover CIC (22 007 831) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about We Do Recover. This is because the function complained about falls outside of our jurisdiction. West Northamptonshire Council (22 008 377) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the assessment of care needs and charging. This is because the complaint is late with no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate it now. Jubilee Court Care Ltd (22 008 440) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care provision because the injustice claimed is not serious enough to warrant our involvement and the use of public money. Bristol City Council (21 016 567) Summary: Miss X complained about a lack of care and support provided by the Council and its care provider to vulnerable occupants of supported living accommodation on the street where she lives. There was no fault in the assessment process or in the care and support provided. However, the Council did accept there was a delay finding suitable new accommodation for one of its service users. It agreed to provide Ms X a personal remedy for the impact of the delay. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 018 673) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council assessed the complainant's Blue Badge application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Methodist Homes (21 018 733) Summary: Ms X complained the Care Provider refused to award her essential care giver status, lied about her to her siblings, made her carry out her COVID-19 lateral flow tests on site and failed to deal appropriately with her complaints. She says this caused her and her mother distress. There was no fault in the Care Provider's actions. Suffolk County Council (22 001 593) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council refused to carry out social care assessments and did not provide advice on her son's social care needs for the review of his Education, Health and Care plan. She also complained about poor communication and complaints handling, which caused frustration and delays, and put her to avoidable time and trouble pursuing the Council. There were failings in the communications and complaints handling. The Council should apologise and make a payment to remedy the injustice caused. London Borough of Southwark (22 006 663) Summary: We will not investigate Mr D's complaint about the care and support he receives from the Council. This is because further investigation could not add to the Council's responses. Essex County Council (21 008 070) Summary: Mr L complained about the way the Council supported his son, Mr X's care needs. Mr L said the Council failed to meet Mr X's care needs and failed to meet his, and his wife's needs as carers. The Council delayed in assessing the care and support needs and failed to provide supported living when Mr and Mrs L said they could no longer care for Mr X. The Council agreed to arrange appropriate alternative accommodation for Mr X. It agreed to pay Mr X £500, and Mr and Mrs L £3,000 to recognise the distress and additional strain caused to them over a prolonged period as a result of the faults. London Borough of Croydon (21 009 192) Summary: Miss X complains about several care providers' failure to provide care for her late mother, Mrs X. She says she will not pay the care contributions the Council is seeking as it has not provided evidence of care. We found fault by the Council and recommended a remedy. Avery Homes (Nelson) Limited (21 014 368) Summary: Mr X's condition deteriorated while he was at the home for respite care. There is some evidence this was due to poor care and treatment on the part of the care provider. There was also an unexplained pressure sore on discharge which the care provider did not notice. The care provider should apologise to Mr X and Mrs A, pay them a sum in recognition of the distress caused and take steps to improve its processes in several key areas. Liverpool City Council (21 016 886) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to review or properly communicate with her about her direct payments and support needs. Ms X says this has caused her anxiety, confusion and put her to the time and trouble of complaining. The Council was at fault for not reviewing or communicating clearly or in a timely manner with Ms X about her direct payments. However, we do not find fault with the Council in how it communicated with Ms X about her role as an employer. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused. Staffordshire County Council (22 003 272) Summary: Miss C complains the Council failed to properly consider her application for a Blue Badge which means she struggles with day to day activities outside the home. We have found fault by the Council in the way it explained its decision to Miss C. However, we consider the agreed action of ensuring a more detailed explanation of any decision with the Council's agreement to accept a new application provides a suitable remedy. Surrey County Council (22 003 473) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the Council's failure to assess Ms C and charge her for her placement. This is because the Council has acknowledged its failings and remedied the fault. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (22 003 936) Summary: The Council was not at fault for charging Ms B for her care from the day she returned home from hospital. It was entitled to do so under the Care Act. Ms B did not receive a period of free care under the government's 'discharge to assess' scheme because her needs had already been assessed and planned for before she left hospital. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (22 005 977) Summary: There was fault by the Council in the way it managed the late Mr Y's finances as his deputy. This caused his relative Mr X avoidable distress and time and trouble but did not cause the estate a loss. The Council has already taken appropriate action to remedy Mr X's injustice and changed its procedures to minimise the chance of recurrence. Cumbria County Council (22 008 184) Summary: We will not investigate Ms Y's complaint about the Council‑commissioned care provider's actions during her late father Mr X's end-of-life placement. We could not now remedy injustice to Mr X, and there is not sufficient personal injustice to Ms Y caused by the matter complained of to warrant an investigation. London Borough of Redbridge (21 014 790) Summary: Miss G complains the Council has failed to meet her assessed eligible care needs and carry out her needed home adaptations due to her health needs. At this stage, we found the Council seriously delayed in carrying out a financial assessment to determine if Miss G needed to contribute to her care package. This in turn delayed the necessary care and support Miss G needed. In addition, the Council sent Miss G incorrect documentation relating to her application for a disabled facilities grant which caused uncertainty and a delay to her needed home alterations. That said, we found Miss G has also been unavailable for appointments and professional visits which also delayed her needed home alterations. Nevertheless, the fault identified has caused Miss G an injustice and so we have made a number of recommendations for the Council to remedy this. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (21 012 055) Summary: The complainant (Mr X) complained about the way the Council recorded information about him in his social care files and about the conduct of his previous Social Worker. He also complained about other social care staff, saying they discriminated against him. We discontinue this investigation as for some issues of this complaint there are bodies better placed to consider it, for others our investigation could not lead to a different outcome. For some issues raised by Mr X we would not be able to achieve his desired outcome. The remaining part of Mr X's complaint is premature. M D J French & Co Ltd (21 017 985) Summary: Mrs X complained about the unsatisfactory standard of care provided to her late father, Mr Y, by Caremark Ltd. Mrs X also complained that care calls were inconsistent and too short, and the Care Provider cancelled her father's contract after she complained. Mrs X says this caused her father and her distress, confusion, and uncertainty. We do not find the Care Provider caused an injustice for cancelling its contract with Mr Y. However, we find it did cause an injustice of uncertainty and confusion to Mrs X for not properly following its complaints procedure, short hours, and for poor record keeping. We have recommended a remedy to address the injustice caused. Leeds City Council (21 003 839) Summary: Mrs B has complained about the way the Council handled her son G's care and support plan and direct payments. The Ombudsman considers that the Council has offered a suitable remedy for the fault in its handling of G's account. It will now consider the affordability of the payments to recover the overpayment. North Yorkshire County Council (22 000 193) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council delayed assessing her care needs. This meant she was denied the opportunity to return home and became eligible for charges. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for unreasonably delaying assessing Mrs X's care needs. The Council has agreed to pay a financial remedy, refund of care payments, and implement service improvements. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (22 000 646) Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of Y. He complained about the way the Council made decisions about Y's Disability Related Expenditure. He said this caused the family financial hardship. We found fault with the Council which caused uncertainty about its decision. The Council agreed actions to remedy the injustice. Lincolnshire County Council (22 002 189) Summary: Mr X complained the Council has wrongly refused to accept property valuations from four estate agents provided as part of a financial assessment to calculate his wife, Mrs X's contributions towards the cost of her care. As a result the Council has asked them to reimburse over £50,000 in care costs and to arrange and fund Mrs X's ongoing care. Mr X states they do not have the resources to pay for this. The delays in resolving the dispute regarding the calculation of Mrs X's assets and whether she is required to self-fund or contribute towards the cost of her care is fault. As are the delays and failings in communication with Mr X. These faults have caused Mr X an injustice. Bristol City Council (22 007 844) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Disabled Facilities Grant as there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Cornwall Care Limited (22 007 997) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about being asked to sign a new contract and direct debit for his late father's, Mr C's, care. This is because the Care Provider apologised and reviewed its processes and procedures. We are satisfied with the actions taken by the Care Provider and there is no ongoing injustice warranting an ombudsman investigation. Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (22 008 270) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's late complaint about the Council charging his late mother, Mrs D for care she received in 2018. This is because there is no good reason to exercise discretion. Mr B could have come to us sooner if he was concerned Mrs D lacked capacity to agree to paying for her care in 2018. It would be for the executor of Mrs D's estate to refuse to pay the debt if they believe she is not responsible for it and defend and court action taken. Surrey County Council (22 007 258) Summary: Mr X complains about the lack of support from the Council while he was caring for his great aunt, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic period. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X by the faults accepted and partially accepted. 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