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. Ideal Carehomes (Number One) Limited (21 018 287) Summary: Mr F complained that the care provider failed to provide proper care to his late mother, Mrs J, prior to her death. We found the care provider's actions caused injustice to Mrs J and her family. The care provider should waive some of the fees to redress this injustice. London Borough of Sutton (21 018 408) Summary: There was delay by the Council in authorising a deprivation of Mr Y's liberty which was fault. The fault did not cause Mr Y distress. The Council will apologise to Ms X, make her a symbolic payment to reflect her avoidable distress and time and trouble complaining and take action described in this statement. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (21 019 095) Summary: there is no fault by the Council on this complaint that the Council failed to ensure that utility bills, rent and personal expenses were properly handled after the Council became the complainant's appointee in late 2019 Norfolk County Council (22 005 855) Summary: Mr X complained the Council withdrew the Disability Related Expense for his gym membership. I found no fault with how the Council reached its decision. Derbyshire County Council (22 009 614) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to discuss the cost implications of a care home placement. This is because the fault accepts have not caused any significant injustice to Mrs X or her mother. East Sussex County Council (22 010 158) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs C's complaint about the Care Provider's failure to properly record Mr B's next of kin. This is because the Care Provider has updated its policies and procedures to minimise the risk of a similar occurrence happening again and we could achieve no more than this even if we investigated. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (22 010 216) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about adult social care provision because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (21 018 609) Summary: Mrs A has raised a complaint with a nursing home and council in relation to nutrition, pressure sore care, oral suctioning and safeguarding. We did not find fault with the Home in relation to nutrition, but did in relation to pressure sore care, oral suctioning and safeguarding. The Home has agreed to carry out our recommendations in relation to these faults. We do not find fault with the Council. Wellington Healthcare (Arden) Ltd (21 018 609a) Summary: Mrs A has raised a complaint with a nursing home and council in relation to nutrition, pressure sore care, oral suctioning and safeguarding. We did not find fault with the Home in relation to nutrition, but did in relation to pressure sore care, oral suctioning and safeguarding. The Home has agreed to carry out our recommendations in relation to these faults. We do not find fault with the Council. Kent County Council (22 005 871) Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's handling of her son's financial assessment, which she says resulted in a delay in setting up his direct payments and his aunt no longer being willing to take on the role of his personal assistant. The Council accepts it mishandled the financial assessment. It has apologised and agreed to backdate the direct payments. The Council failed to take account of its duties under the Equality Act 2010 by sending him a financial assessment which did not take account of his personal financial circumstances or his need for support with the process. The Council needs to apologise for the avoidable confusion and distress caused. It also needs to take action to ensure it takes proper account of its duties under the Equality Act when doing financial assessments. A & K Home Care Services LTD (22 007 352) Summary: Miss X complained the Care Provider's visits to her father were too short and that it did not attend some. She also complained it refused to give her a refund. The Care Provider was not at fault in how it charged Mr Y for his care, but it was at fault for keeping incomplete records of its visits. This caused Miss X uncertainty. The Care Provider will pay Miss X £200 in recognition of that injustice. Runwood Homes Limited (22 009 165) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the standard of care provided to Mrs X's father during his four days stay at a care home. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Manchester City Council (22 010 064) Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaint about the Council's refusal to allocate her a named Social Worker. This is because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault to warrant an ombudsman investigation. Interhaze Limited (22 010 298) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint about care provided to her late husband Mr B. This is because further investigation by us could not add to the Care Provider's response or make a different finding of the kind Mrs B wants. North Somerset Council (22 000 362) Summary: We have found no fault with the Council's actions in relation to Mr X's mother's care or how it communicated its charging policy. Sheffield City Council (22 001 445) Summary: Mrs X complained about errors in how the Council managed her mother's, Mrs Y's and father's, Mr Y's, care home fees and of poor communication. There was no fault in how it managed Mrs Y's care fees. There was fault in how it managed Mr Y's fees. There was delay and error in the financial assessment. It then agreed to pay for Mr Y's care and backdate payments to September 2021 but did not start doing so for three months. The errors caused Mrs X uncertainty, distress and financial loss. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs X £400 in recognition of the distress and uncertainty caused and support her to ensure she is refunded all monies owed to her by the care home. Leicestershire County Council (22 010 024) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint about his mother's Council commissioned adult social care not meeting the required Care Quality Commission standards. This is because the Council has apologised to Mr B for his upset, and we could not provide a remedy for any injustice to his mother who has sadly died. It is therefore unlikely investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr B. Lancashire County Council (21 004 975) Summary: We have found fault with the Council for the actions of the care provider it commissioned. The care provider mis-medicated Mr X's father on three occasions. This caused Mr X and his family avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice. Wiltshire Council (22 000 491) Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council did not increase her direct payment in line with inflation and told her she couldn't use an agency. We do not find the Council was at fault in this but we do find the Council was at fault in its delay alerting Mrs X to her overspending. We recommended the Council review Mrs X's care and support plan and ensure her budget is enough to pay for adequate care and support. It has agreed to do this and backdate any shortfall. Birmingham City Council (22 005 565) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Council issuing an invoice to Mr X's partner. This is because the alleged fault has not caused any significant injustice. London Borough of Croydon (22 006 305) Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not fully consider her application for a taxi card. Miss X says this has affected her mental wellbeing. The Council was not at fault. Cambridgeshire County Council (22 008 547) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding because it is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome. The risk was immediately removed, and the Council refunded care fees which acknowledges Mrs C's distress. Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (22 009 152) Summary: The Council is at fault as it delayed in complying with our agreed actions following the investigation of Mrs X and Ms Y's previous complaint about the care of Mr Z. The Council is also at fault as it issued an apology to Ms Y which referred to Mr Z by the wrong name. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms Y for the distress caused and has issued the payment agreed as a remedy for the previous complaint. Birmingham City Council (22 010 109) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's late complaint about the Council's refusal to reimburse him money he paid for his late father's care. This is because Mr B could have come to us at the time he was paying for his father's care if he believed he should not have had to pay. There is no good reason to exercise our discretion to investigate this late complaint now. London Borough of Ealing (21 017 139) Summary: Ms C complained about the way the Council handled her mother's discharge from hospital, which resulted in distress to herself. We found fault with regards to the actions of the Council, for which it has agreed to apologise. Nottinghamshire County Council (21 017 566) Summary: Mrs X complained about Mr Y's needs assessments and mental capacity assessment. Also, the care packages and charges for care. We found fault in the mental capacity assessment and care and support plan. We recommended the Council review its training in these areas and ensure Mr Y did not pay for two care workers. The Council has agreed to this. London Borough of Southwark (21 018 759) Summary: There was fault in the late Mr Y's care, which was not delivered in line with his care and support plan as care calls were much shorter than they should have been. The Council has already identified fault and taken some action by apologising to the family and ending its contract with the Care Provider. The Council will make a payment to reflect the avoidable distress described in this statement. St. Judes Care Ltd (22 001 944) Summary: Mr B complains, on behalf of his father Mr C, that the Care Provider did not properly provide care for Mr C. The Care Provider took too long to reply to Mr B's complaint and did not follow its complaints process properly. This did not cause Mr C any injustice. Leeds City Council (22 009 168) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a care provider failing to contact Mrs X when her father was admitted to hospital, where he passed away. The Council has agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice caused to Mrs X by the fault, and to work with the Care Provider to improve its admission paperwork. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (22 009 419) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint that Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council charged her for domiciliary care. We do not consider there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating her complaint. Salford City Council (22 009 560) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding because we could not add to a Safeguarding Adults Review or reach a different outcome, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr B wants of holding individuals to account. 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