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. Worcestershire County Council (21 007 523) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council was wrong to withdraw night time care for her daughter. She says the Council took account of incorrect information. We have not found evidence of fault by the Council. Leicester City Council (22 000 345) Summary: Mr X complained about the care provided to him by Agency B and how it dealt with his complaint about a carer's conduct towards him. Mr X also complained about the Council's delays in arranging an alternative care provider after Agency B stopped providing him with care. There were some faults in how the Council dealt with providing Mr X with alternative care provision. This caused Mr X distress and inconvenience. He was left without a care package, so his care needs were not met for two months. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (22 005 797) Summary: Mrs Y complained about the Council's decision to change her daughter Miss X's care agency and failing to complete a financial assessment review when she requested one. This has caused significant stress to her and Miss X. We find fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address this injustice. Cera Care Operations Limited (22 006 116) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the Care Provider overcharging and failing to respond to the complaint, because the injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement. Kent County Council (22 006 334) Summary: Mrs Y complained the Council failed to take appropriate action when she reported an increase in her aunt, Mrs X's social care needs and said the Council failed to respond to her. We find fault by the Council. This caused significant stress to Mrs Y and Mrs X. We make several recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (22 012 157) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's removal of the complainant's daughter from her care. This is because the matter has already been decided in court. Kingsley Care Homes Ltd (21 017 856) Summary: Mr C complained about the care his father received at his care home. He said that, as a result, the family had no other option than to immediately move him to another home. We have found there was some fault, for which the care provider has agreed to apologise. It will also share the lessons learned with its staff. Salford City Council (22 005 175) Summary: Mrs X complained about delays and poor communication in the Council's handling of her Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) application and request for additional funding for exceptional circumstances. She said the delays caused her and her family considerable inconvenience and distress. The Council was at fault. The Council has already accepted fault in how it handled Mrs X's case but not provided a suitable remedy. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Mrs X £500 in recognition of the impact of the delays and poor communication on the family and the distress caused. Surrey County Council (22 005 425) Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her mother, Mrs Y. She complained Mrs Y's social care support and fuel payments were paused at the start of the Covid 19 lockdown, but then cancelled without warning. Mrs X also complained about poor communication from the Council and delays completing adaptations when Mrs Y was moving home. Mrs X says this has caused uncertainty and distress. There was fault in the way the Council communicated with Mrs X and Mrs Y. The Council will make a payment to Mrs X and confirm its decisions relating to Mrs Y's care. Lancashire County Council (22 007 661) Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not assess his application for a blue badge properly. He complained the Council did not understand his situation and did not have all the information it needed to make a decision. Mr X says this has affected his mental health. The Council was not at fault. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (22 010 600) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint about the Council's failure to keep her informed about her daughter's, Ms C's needs, or inaccuracies contained in Ms C's hospital Passport. This is because further investigation by us could not add to the Council's response. Lancashire County Council (21 018 340) Summary: We uphold Mr X's complaint about the care and treatment provided to his mother, Mrs Z. We found fault with the way the Trust and the Council handled Mrs Z's discharge from hospital and how staff communicated with her during her physiotherapy assessments. We also found fault with the Council's record keeping, communication and Mrs Z's continence care. As a result, Mrs Z experienced unnecessary discomfort which impacted on her dignity and Mr X was caused stress and worry. The Trust and Council will apologise to Mr X and Mrs Z and pay a total of £450. They will also take action to prevent similar problems occurring in the future. Pine View Care Homes Ltd (22 000 034) Summary: There was fault in the way the Home communicated with the family of a resident and its failure to respond to the family's complaints. There was also fault in the Home's record keeping. This has caused the family distress and we recommend that the Home apologises to the family and pays £150. Surrey County Council (22 001 189) Summary: Mrs Y complained the support the Council offered Mr X during a home emergency was inadequate. There was no fault in the support the Council offered. Derbyshire County Council (22 006 671) Summary: There is no fault in the decision to stop funding Ms X's phone line. Council staff were not involved with assessing Ms X's mental health in December 2021. Birmingham City Council (22 009 357) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council completed an adult social care assessment. That is because there is nothing worthwhile to be achieved through further investigation. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (21 003 589) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not investigating or responding to safeguarding concerns about hospital ward cleaning standards which worried the complainant's son when he was a patient. This is because there is neither evidence of Council fault we could investigate effectively, nor evidence of significant injustice to the complainant or to her son which would warrant the Ombudsman investigating. Elder Technologies Limited (22 005 432) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that an introductory care agency withdrew its agreement to provide a care package. We do not have the jurisdiction to investigate. Bosence Farm Community Limited (22 008 209) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of Mr B's Treatment Provider. This is because complaints about treatment provision are not within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. Aldergrove Manor Ltd (21 013 009) Summary: Ms C complains the failure of the Care Provider to properly support her father led to his premature death. The Care Provider has already accepted it failed to provide Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR). It is also at fault for inadequate records. This has caused uncertainty about what care Mr D received and whether the Care Provider properly cared for him. To remedy the complaint the Care Provider has agreed to apologise to Ms C and pay her £650 in acknowledgment it did not follow CPR policies properly and the uncertainty the lack of care records has caused. It will also provide training to care staff about the importance of proper recording, review the process it uses for recording interventions and take the steps it has already identified in training and supporting staff with CPR. Elmfield Residential Home Limited (21 018 307) Summary: There was some fault in the way the care home communicated with Mr B that it had made a decision to terminate his mother's stay at the Home. Some of the terms of the Home's contract were also not in line with the guidelines. We have recommended that the Home apologises, pays a small and reviews its contract. Rutland County Council (22 000 033) Summary: Ms C complains the Council failed to properly assess her charges for support within her home and provide her with a direct payment to meet her eligible needs. The Council is at fault for making decisions without considering Ms C's individual situation both about her charges and her direct payment. This has caused uncertainty about whether Ms C's charge and direct payment is correct. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms C and pay her £250 for the uncertainty and avoidable time and trouble this has caused her. It will also remind staff and if necessary provide training about not applying blanket policies. Buckinghamshire Council (22 000 802) Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of Mr Y. She complained about the Council's delay in assessing Mr Y's care and support needs. The Council was at fault for the delays with completing Mr Y's care needs assessment and delays with providing him with the appropriate provisions agreed in his support plan. This caused injustice to Mr Y and Mrs X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused. Lincolnshire County Council (22 001 178) Summary: There is no fault in how the Council dealt with Ms X's requests for an adult social care assessment. Lancashire County Council (22 002 143) Summary: We uphold Mr X's complaint about his unsafe hospital discharge. We found the Trust and Council failed put a package of care in place for Mr X prior to his discharge from hospital. We also found fault with the way the Care Provider communicated with Mrs Y. The Council and the Trust will apologise to Mr X and Mrs Y and take action to prevent similar problems occurring in the future. Reading Borough Council (22 002 834) Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it decided Ms Y's care needs, nor for reducing the hours of support she received from her care provider. The Council was at fault for delaying in providing Ms Y with an advocate, but this did not cause any injustice. City of York Council (22 010 219) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint about way the Council conducted a Best Interests Meeting for her son, Mr C, or the way it treated her. This is because further investigation could not add to the Council's response or make a different finding of the kind Mrs B wants. Consultus Care and Nursing Ltd (22 010 500) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about fees for care services. Part of it is about events the complainant was aware of more than 12 months before he complained to us. For the more recent events, there is insufficient evidence the actions of the Care Provider caused Mr and Mrs Y the injustice claimed. Kent County Council (22 010 701) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the outcome of a Mental Capacity Assessment. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council completed the assessment to justify our involvement. The Court of Protection is best placed to make decisions on capacity. South Coast Nursing Homes Limited (22 010 748) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint about his mother's missing jewellery. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve a worthwhile outcome for Mr X. Also, it is reasonable for Mr X to pursue the matter through the courts if he believes the care provider is responsible for the lost items. Cambridgeshire County Council (22 010 885) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's decision her husband had intentionally deprived himself of assets. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. 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