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. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (21 002 065) Summary: The Council has agreed to release details of the late Mr X's estate to his family to enable an application for probate. Lancashire County Council (21 015 121) Summary: Mr B complains on behalf of Mr M that the Council has wrongly charged Mr M for home care he did not want and should not be charged for. Mr B says this has caused Mr M a great deal of stress and upset and that he now has unjustified debt. We found fault which caused injustice. The Council has agreed to waive Mr M's financial contributions. Calsa Care Limited (21 016 658) Summary: Mrs X complained about the visiting arrangements Calsa Care Ltd had in place during the COVID-19 pandemic, its refusal to award her essential care giver status and its decision to give her mother, Mrs M, notice. She also complained about the care Mrs M received at the end of her life. The care provider was at fault for poor record-keeping although it is not possible to determine if this caused Mrs X or Mrs M personal injustice. It has agreed to make service improvements to prevent a reoccurrence. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (22 000 036) Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council assessed Mrs Y's care needs and no fault in the subsequent decisions made about the care she needed. There is no evidence to show that Mrs Y or her family were pressured into accepting care or that they raised any objections at the time. London Borough of Lewisham (22 008 004) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful Blue Badge application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Suffolk County Council (21 015 094) Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about delays in Ms Y's accommodation accepting her back after she was ready to be discharged from hospital. There is not a good reason Mrs X did not bring this complaint to us sooner. Blackbourne View (21 015 094b) Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about delays in Ms Y's accommodation accepting her back after she was ready to be discharged from hospital. There is not a good reason Mrs X did not bring this complaint to us sooner. Warwickshire County Council (22 000 102) Summary: The Council acknowledges Mrs X received poor care and treatment by the commissioned care provider. Mrs X suffered severe dehydration, often expressed pain which was not acted on and was not treated with dignity. The Council will now offer a sum in recognition of the harm caused to Mrs X and distress caused to her family. It has already taken steps to improve the quality of the care at the home. Lancashire County Council (22 000 692) Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to deal properly with her financial assessment by failing to respond to telephone communications and correspondence, and by failing to make reasonable adjustments to reflect her needs, resulting in it imposing charges which she could not afford to pay and taking 10 months to resolve this. The Council failed to consider offering Ms X a face-to-face assessment, to ensure she received the support she needed, until 2022. This caused unnecessary distress when she received invoices for bills she could not afford to pay. The Council needs to apologise, pay financial redress and take action to ensure officers are aware of their duties under the Equality Act 2010. Gloucestershire County Council (22 008 680) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council assessing Mrs X's mother to be a self-funder from the date probate was granted. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Lincolnshire County Council (22 008 708) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a carer raising safeguarding concerns about Mr X's treatment of his mother. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. West Northamptonshire Council (22 009 219) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care fees because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons why Mr B could not have complained to us sooner. In addition, we cannot achieve the remedy Mr B wants which is for the Council to write off the debt, only a court could decide that. London Borough of Croydon (20 011 643) Summary: Miss X complains the Council has prolonged her stay in residential care, but the evidence shows the Council has made every time to enable a supported return home. Miss X has so far chosen not to pay for the renovations her house requires to be habitable. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (22 004 098) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the residential care provided to Mrs Y. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is unlikely we could add anything to the response the complainant's have received from the Care Provider on behalf of the Council. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (22 005 582) Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mrs C's complaint about the Council's adult safeguarding enquiry. Mrs C can approach the Information Commissioner's Office about her data protection complaints, and there is not enough evidence of fault in the remainder of her complaint to justify further investigation. London Borough of Bromley (22 007 762) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the wording the Council used in a letter after the complainant applied for a Freedom Pass. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. West Sussex County Council (22 008 982) Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaint about the way the Council considered safeguarding matters about her. This is because the Council's actions have not caused Ms B a significant enough injustice to warrant an ombudsman investigation. Further investigation by us could not add to the Council's response of make a different finding of the kind Ms B wants. Medway Council (21 017 310) Summary: The Council took too long to review Mr B's financial assessment which allowed arrears to accrue. It also did not properly consider whether he could afford to pay the arrears. The Council has agreed to take the action recommended below. East Sussex County Council (22 000 009) Summary: Mrs F complains about the Council's decision to refuse her application for a blue badge. We found no fault in the way the Council made its decision. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (22 002 307) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to tell her when her free care package ended. Mrs X also complained the Council has charged a management fee as well the care charges. We found fault with the Council. The Council has already removed the management fee which addressed the fault and injustice caused. Lancashire County Council (22 006 608) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsafe discharge from hospital and the Council's decision to charge Miss X's mother for her care home placement. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Wakefield City Council (22 008 993) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint the Council's contact about her social care and a legal case caused her anxiety, that it tried to obtain personal information without her consent from her surgery and has not communicated properly. We cannot achieve what Mrs X wants. We cannot investigate most matters because a court is considering Mrs X's welfare. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (22 000 526) Summary: Mr B complained about the actions of a Care Provider because he says his late mother's rings went missing in one of its nursing homes. He also said the Council did not do enough to investigate the matter. We did not find fault by the Council. The Care Provider failed to follow its procedures as it did not ensure a record of belongings form was signed by its staff and Mr B's mother. This is likely to leave Mr B with uncertainty about the whereabouts of his mother's rings. The Care Provider has agreed to our recommendations and will apologise to Mr B and improve its procedures to ensure residents belongings are properly recorded, agreed, and signed by the resident or their representative. 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