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. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 001 973) Summary: Mr Y complained that the Council took four months to complete an assessment of his care and support needs. He says it took a further 16 months to provide the services he needed, but it still did not provide enough. It could not decide which team should assess him because he had autistic spectrum disorder and no learning disability or mental health condition. He had already spent two years trying to get a full assessment. It also took five months to do an inadequate carer's assessment for Mrs Z. Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (21 011 825) Summary: The Trust entered into by Mrs X did not amount to a deprivation of assets, so the Council was entitled to take the value of her property into account in her financial assessment. Nottinghamshire County Council (21 014 715) Summary: The Council was at fault when it failed to provide Mr X with affordable options for his parents, Mr and Mrs P's, care placements. As a result, Mr X was denied the option to choose between a care home with no top up fee and a more affordable one. The Council has agreed to repay, or write off, the top ups Mr X has paid or owes and make service improvements. There was no fault in how the Council decided to take the value of the Mr and Mrs P's property into account when deciding what they could afford to pay for their care. There was also no fault in the support provided to Mrs P before she was admitted to the Care Home, its actions in relation to falls experienced by Mr and Mrs P or the information in their care plans about their mobility. However, the Care Home was at fault when it failed to update Mr and Mrs P's next of kin, Mr X, about these and other incidents. Although Mr X was not caused a significant injustice, the Council should make service improvements to prevent a reoccurrence. Worcestershire County Council (21 016 924) Summary: Mrs C complained a care home, acting on behalf of the Council, failed to provide her with appropriate care, failed to treat her with dignity and compassion, failed to ensure she received suitable medical care, unreasonably restricted Mrs D's access and influenced a second care home's decision not to admit Mrs C. The home, acting on behalf of the Council, failed to cleanse Mrs C's room as regularly as it should, failed to carry out a risk assessment on admission, interrupted telephone calls and wrongly refused to accept Mrs C back at the home. There is no fault in the remainder of the case. An apology and payment to Mrs D is satisfactory remedy. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (21 017 826) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council communicated poorly with her and her family about paying for her mother's care, finding and arranging assessments at care homes, and when her mother was in hospital. Mrs X said the delay arranging a residential care home placement resulted in her mother going missing. She said the family has had to pay for care fees they would not have had to pay if the Council had acted quicker to arrange the care home placement. She also said this caused anxiety and stress. We find the Council at fault for not covering the Social Care Practitioner's work, meaning there was a lack of communication and a delay in arranging a care home placement. The Council will make a payment to Mrs X to reflect the uncertainty caused. Also, the Council will show us the arrangements it is making to cover unexpected staff leave in future. Medway Council (22 001 113) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to effectively search for a suitable care placement for her mother, Mrs P. She says the family felt pressured to accept an unaffordable placement. The Council undertook a thorough search for a placement for Mrs P. However, ultimately, it was at fault for failing to provide a genuine choice of placement. This caused Mrs P an injustice as she felt she had to pay a top-up fee to place her mother in a suitable care home. Buckinghamshire Council (22 001 904) Summary: We will not investigate Ms A's complaint about how Buckinghamshire Council dealt with a safeguarding enquiry about her brother, Mr B's, supported living accommodation. This is because it is unlikely an investigation could achieve the outcome Ms A wants. Kent County Council (22 008 326) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council pursuing her for a care fee debt she says she does not owe. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its decision to pursue Miss X for the debt to justify us investigating. It would be reasonable for Miss X to seek a review by providing further evidence as the Council has proposed. There is not enough evidence of injustice caused to Miss X by a document with an alleged forged signature to warrant investigation and investigation of this matter would not result in a different outcome. Wokingham Borough Council (22 008 589) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the Council charging a top-up fee for his mother's, Mrs D's care home placement. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an ombudsman investigation. Cambridgeshire County Council (21 010 583) Summary: Ms X complained about the way in which the Council has dealt with her mother's financial assessment since 2017. We found there were avoidable delays and the Council failed to try and include Ms M in the safeguarding enquiry. The Council has offered to apologise for this and pay a financial remedy to Ms X for any distress she experienced. We found this to be an appropriate remedy. Manchester City Council (22 001 765) Summary: Mr B complained about the actions of the Council in respect of work done by a contractor in his home under a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). He said the contractor did not advise him correctly causing him to throw away items which could have been reused. We found the Council was not responsible for the actions of the contractor, beyond ensuring the works were completed satisfactorily but its communication with Mr B could have been clearer and provided more quickly. The Council has agreed to pay Mr B £100 and improve the information it provides DFG recipients for the future. Liverpool City Council (22 005 135) Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to deal properly with his mother's placement in a care home since June 2020. It is too late to investigate much of Mr X's complaint. Recent events do not support the claim of fault by the Council. Durham County Council (22 007 477) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint, made on behalf of her mother Mrs Y, about the Council's charging and invoicing for Mrs Y's care. In response to the complaint the Council has reduced the bill based on the information received about the care provision, and explained the outstanding charges. We could not add to the Council's investigation and explanation and there is no different outcome an Ombudsman investigation would achieve. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's fee backdating decisions to warrant investigation. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (22 008 564) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about safeguarding a vulnerable adult because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. We could not achieve a remedy for the person affected because they have died, and the injustice to their representative is not sufficient to warrant our involvement. The representative has a more appropriate route to obtain information from the Council about the data it holds. The complaint is a late complaint as the representative knew about the issues more than 12 months ago. Cheshire East Council (22 008 718) Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaint about the way she has been treated by the Council. This is because further investigation could not add to the Council's response or make a different finding of the kind Ms B wants. West Sussex County Council (22 008 821) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Care Provider's refusal to share documents with Mr X. The Information Commissioner's Office is best placed to consider complaints about how organisations respond to requests for information. Suffolk County Council (21 018 696) Summary: The Council told Mr X his mother would be liable to pay the cost of her care. There is therefore no reason to waive the fees before November 2021 as Mr X suggests. There were some occasions when Mrs X's care package was not completely fulfilled because of carer shortages but there is no evidence this caused material injustice to Mrs X. Cornwall Council (22 000 442) Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not take in to account her and her son, Mr Y's individual circumstances when it completed a financial assessment for his care and support needs. Ms X also complained the Council did not allow expenses for a holiday and car as disability related expenses. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decisions. City of York Council (22 001 187) Summary: Mrs F complained about the Council's decision to apply a top up on her mother's care charge contributions. She also complained about the advice and support she received. We found fault in the way the Council applied its top up charge and the support it provided Mrs F with finding suitable care homes for her mother. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs F, remove its top up charges, and make payment to acknowledge the injustice this caused her. Suffolk County Council (22 001 558) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council: failed to deal properly with safeguarding concerns involving her daughter; a care worker failed to support her daughter properly on 15 February 2022; and both the care provider and the Council failed to deal properly with her complaints about this. The Council accepts it took too long to deal with the safeguarding concerns. The care provider failed to deal properly with Mrs X's complaint about the events on 15 February. Mrs X has been caused avoidable distress and put to the time and trouble of pursuing the complaint. The Council needs to apologise and pay financial redress. West Sussex County Council (22 004 857) Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's handling of the charges for his son's care. The Council has apologised for the delay in responding to his complaint. There is no other evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice which requires a remedy. Midshires Care Limited (22 007 004) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the care provider charging her father for cancelled care calls when he was in hospital. This is because there is no sign of fault by the care provider. Surrey County Council (22 007 968) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to reduce the funding to meet Mrs X's mother's care needs. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused by the likely fault. Sheffield City Council (22 008 135) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's communication with Mrs X. That is because the complaint is late. Darlington Borough Council (22 008 197) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint about the Council charging her husband, Mr B, for respite care she was told would be free of charge. This is because the Council has investigated her complaints and we are satisfied the recommendations identified as an outcome of the Council's investigation, remedy the injustice caused by the fault. Brunelcare (21 017 118) Summary: Ms C complained about the care her (late) father received at his care home. We found there was fault with regards to some of the aspects of the support Mr F received at the care home. The care home has agreed to apologise for the distress this caused and pay a financial remedy. Bowbrook House (22 001 337) Summary: Mrs X has complained about the care her husband, Mr X, received from a care provider, causing him to deteriorate rapidly. Mrs X also complained the Care Provider was critical of the care she had provided him. We find the Care Provider at fault for failing to take and keep full records, and for failing to contact Mrs X following a change in Mr X's behaviour. We recommend the Care Provider apologise to Mrs X, make a payment for uncertainty and distress, and take action to prevent recurrence. Lincolnshire County Council (21 014 797) Summary: Mrs C complained about the Council's decision to reduce her daughter's care package, and the delay in finding a care agency to provide this, which she said resulted in distress to her and her daughter. We did not find fault with the way in which the Council reached its decision to reduce the package. However, there was a delay in putting the support package in place, for which the Council has agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy. Leeds City Council (22 006 414) Summary: The Ombudsmen will not investigate complaints about a Council and an NHS Trust about events relating to a hospital admission and care arrangements on discharge. There are no indications of fault in how either organisation acted. The Trust has acknowledged some communication issues, but it has already taken appropriate actions to address these. We are therefore unlikely to achieve more by investigating. The Ombudsmen will not investigate a complaint about a safeguarding referral made in 2013 because this is late and there is no good reason why the complaint could not have been made sooner. Dr V Sapatnekar (22 008 367) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care fees because there is no evidence to support the Care Provider's actions have caused injustice. Lancashire County Council (22 008 536) Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaint about the way she was made to feel at a meeting. This is because further investigation could not add to the Care Provider's response or make a different finding of the kind Ms B wants. 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. 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 the Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy this. Gloucestershire County Council (22 007 467) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's commissioning arrangements for care. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating. The Council has already apologised to Mr X for not telling him his Care Provider were stopping its services. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (21 009 384) Summary: Ms A complained about several organisations involved in her father, Mr D's care, when his physical health and behaviour deteriorated towards the end of his life. Mr D had dementia. Ms A said failings in Mr D's care meant his family were distressed by his deterioration. We found fault with a Council. and it agreed to take action to improve. We also found fault with an Ambulance Trust, but it has taken appropriate action to address this fault. We did not find fault with the other organisations. Kent County Council (22 006 045) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to share information about Mr X's mother-in-law and about failure to complete appropriate safeguarding enquiries. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Coventry City Council (21 015 380) Summary: Mr and Mrs K complained about a delay in their son Mr A's diabetes being diagnosed, and about a care provider destroying Mr A's care records. We found fault by the care provider in destroying Mr A's records and in how it responded to the complaint. We did not find fault with the care provider about the timeframe of Mr A's diabetes diagnosis, or by the Council and NHS Trust also involved in Mr A's care. The care provider, in liaison with the Council, has agreed to take action to improve its services, and to pay a financial remedy to Mr and Mrs K. Dignus Healthcare Ltd (21 015 380c) Summary: Mr and Mrs K complained about a delay in their son Mr A's diabetes being diagnosed, and about a care provider destroying Mr A's care records. We found fault by the care provider in destroying Mr A's records and in how it responded to the complaint. We did not find fault with the care provider about the timeframe of Mr A's diabetes diagnosis, or by the Council and NHS Trust also involved in Mr A's care. The care provider, in liaison with the Council, has agreed to take action to improve its services, and to pay a financial remedy to Mr and Mrs K. 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