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 Hounslow (21 018 113) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to ensure his family are suitably housed given Mrs X's disabilities. The Council was not at fault for the way it dealt with Mr X's housing priority, housing allocation and care needs assessment. The Council was at fault as it failed to consider whether Mr X could apply for a disabled facilities grant. It has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X to acknowledge the frustration and uncertainty this caused. It has also agreed to review its procedures. Leicestershire County Council (21 018 852) Summary: Mrs X complained about the care and service she and the late Mr Y received at Scalford Court Nursing Home, arranged by the Council. We found fault in the way the Care Provider dealt with Mrs X and Mr Y, including during his end of life care. This caused significant and undue distress at an already difficult time. The Council has agreed to apologise and take actions to avoid similar problems in future. London Borough of Lambeth (22 000 794) Summary: There was fault in the Council's actions. The Council has not carried out a mental capacity assessment of Mr C and has not considered alternative accommodation for him in his care plan. There were delays in the provision of suitable transport for Mr C to go to college. The Council has also not provided Mrs B with a carer's care plan. The Council has agreed to apologise, to provide the assessments and plans it should have provided and to provide a financial remedy. Cheshire East Council (22 001 479) Summary: Mr X complained about the quality of care provided by a Council commissioned care provider, Safe Hands Care and Support Service. Mr X also complained about Safe Hands Care and Support Service's handling of his complaint and accusations that he was racist. We found fault with the Council for failing to ensure the care provider completed a suitable investigation into Mr X's complaint. The Council agreed to our recommendation to apologise to Mr X and ask the care provider to complete a suitable investigation in line with its policy. Birmingham City Council (22 001 500) Summary: Mr X complained about delays in carrying out bathroom adaptations and about the quality of the work. The Council delayed allocating a contractor to carry out remedial work and this was fault for which it has already apologised. This was an appropriate remedy. Further delays in completing the works were not as a result of fault by the Council. Kent County Council (22 001 783) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's failure to advise her of the restrictions of its direct payments scheme. This led to a misuse of public funds that she cannot afford to repay. We have found some fault because the Council did not respond to Mrs X's proposal to employ her family to provide care. We have made recommendations to the Council to reflect the limited injustice that arose from this fault. Otherwise, we were satisfied Mrs X was given sufficient information to understand public funds could only be spent on assessed support needs. Northumberland County Council (22 002 090) Summary: We found fault in the way a Council, Mental Health Trust and GP Practice supported a vulnerable man in the community for over two years. Each of the organisations has accepted its failings and the impact of them and has taken steps to prevent recurrences, so we have not recommended any further action. We also found a Hospital Trust failed to properly assess the man's mental capacity while he was an inpatient. This has left the man's family with uncertainty which is an injustice to them. The Hospital Trust has agreed to provide an apology and to offer a small financial payment to address this. Herefordshire Council (22 002 110) Summary: Miss C complains that the Council said it would move her daughter, Miss D, to a care home closer to the family home when a place became available but refused to do so. The Council was at fault for poor communication with Miss C. This fault caused injustice as Miss C was distressed when the Council did not move Miss D. However, the Council could not move Miss D as it had found it was not in her best interests to do so. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (22 002 448) Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to deal with Mr X's complaints of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour in his supported accommodation. It was also at fault for failing to respond to his complaint at stage two of its process. The Council was not at fault in how it dealt with issues of disrepair and the quality of support provided or for ending his housing benefit. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Mr X £150, and act to improve its services. Kent County Council (22 011 089) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council did not tell the complainant about the personal expense allowance. That is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Nottingham City Council (22 011 138) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council administered a Disabled Facilities Grant. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Blackpool Borough Council (22 011 406) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way Mr B was treated by his Care Provider. This is because we could not make a different finding to that already given by his Care Provider who has apologised for the distress caused to him. We are satisfied an apology remedies any injustice caused to him from the Care Provider's actions. Derbyshire County Council (22 007 187) Summary: Miss X complained on behalf of Mr Y. Mr Y complained the Council completed an assessment without him being involved in the process. Mr Y also complained the Council cancelled his support without discussing it with him. Mr Y says he is not supported by the service, and this has affected his mental health. There was fault in the way the Council recorded its communication about the assessment but this did not affect the outcome and did not cause a significant injustice. Lincolnshire County Council (22 007 856) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint about the way the Council has assessed her daughter's, Ms D's Disability Related Expenditure (DRE). This is because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault to warrant an ombudsman investigation. We cannot investigate Mrs B's complaints about Ms D's care and support needs because we have previously considered and decided them. Caremark (Harrow) (22 011 605) Summary: We will not investigate Mr D's complaint about the action of his late mother's, Mrs B's, live-in-carer. This is because we could not make a finding of the kind Mr D wants. It would be reasonable for Mr D to ask the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) to consider his request for information Mrs B's Care Provider is refusing to give him. London Borough of Hackney (22 009 065) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to decline Mr X's son's blue badge renewal application. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X by the likely fault. London Borough of Harrow (22 009 513) Summary: Mrs C asked the Council to provide her with a reasonable adjustment so that she could attend an assessment for a Blue Badge. The Council delayed properly considering Mrs C's request and there was a delay in the assessment. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs C and provide her with a small financial remedy. Leicester City Council (22 000 588) Summary: The complaint is about the Council's safeguarding investigation into incidents in a care home involving the complainant's father. The Ombudsman's decision is there was no fault by the Council. It conducted a proportionate investigation in reaching its view the incidents were one-offs. As there was no fault, we cannot question the merits of the Council's decision. Leicestershire County Council (22 006 473) Summary: Mrs U complains the care home the Council placed her father in was not safe for him. And it did not take their concerns seriously, or communicate with them. The Ombudsman cannot say the placement was unsuitable. But we do find fault with some actions of the care provider, its record keeping and communications with Mrs U. The Council has agreed to our recommendations. Birmingham City Council (22 008 871) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage to property because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. The Council's insurers are the appropriate body to decide a claim for damage, not the Ombudsman. Devon County Council (21 001 323) Summary: Mrs J complains about the way the Council assessed her care and support needs. The Council has accepted there was some fault and has already apologised for this. This is sufficient remedy for the injustice caused. Leicester City Council (21 004 153) Summary: There was fault in the way the Council made decisions in response to Mr C's sister's request to become appointee for Mr C and this meant that Mr C's sister had to make an application for deputyship. There were long gaps in the authorisations of Mr C's deprivation of liberty which meant that Mr C did not have the benefit of the scrutiny of these authorisations. The Council has agreed to an apology and a financial remedy. Devon County Council (21 007 699) Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not contact her adult son, before, during or after his assessment for Adult Social Care in July 2020. I have discontinued my investigation as there is nothing more we could reasonably achieve and we cannot investigate matters considered by the SEND Tribunal. Lancashire County Council (21 018 192) Summary: We find fault with the Council. The Council did not keep accurate records about what was discussed with Miss S before she agreed to go to a Care Home. It also did not arrange funding with the local Integrated Care Board (ICB) to cover the interim period Miss S spent in a Care Home whilst she waited for a rehabilitation bed. The Council was also unclear with Mrs D in the local complaints process around the Continuing Healthcare screening process. These faults meant Miss S paid for a Care Home place which caused her distress and impacted on her recovery. Mrs D was distressed and frustrated with the Council who did not fully explain what happened. We recommended an apology, financial redress to both Miss S and Mrs D and service improvements to address the injustice. Leicester City Council (22 004 780) Summary: There was fault in the Council's and the care home's management of Mr C's finances and there was fault in the Council's safeguarding enquiry into the care home's actions. This meant that Mr C's finances were not properly monitored. The Council has agreed to apologise, provide a small symbolic financial remedy and review the safeguarding enquiry. London Borough of Harrow (22 008 875) Summary: Ms X complains about the Council's handling of her mother's blue badge application and data breach by its contractor causing distress. The Information Commissioner has considered the data breach. The Council has accepted it was at fault. It has already apologised and offered a suitable remedy. So, we are discontinuing our investigation into the complaint. New Care Formby OPCO Limited (22 009 438) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the actions of Formby Manor Care Home. This is because it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the organisation or further investigation would lead to a different outcome. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (22 010 327) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's response to her request for information about her mother. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council. London Borough of Redbridge (22 010 965) Summary: We will not investigate Mr J's complaint about his mother's discharge from hospital in November 2017. This is because a significant amount of time has passed since the events Mr J is complaining about occurred and there is nothing to suggest he was unable to raise his concerns sooner. Suffolk County Council (22 011 039) Summary: We will not investigate Mr C's complaint about the Council's refusal to provide him with a male advocate and Social Worker. This is because it is unlikely there is enough evidence of fault with the Council's actions to warrant an ombudsman investigation. In the absence of fault, we cannot comment on the merits of councils decisions. Somerset County Council (22 011 546) Summary: We will not investigate Mr C's complaint about care and support provided to Mrs D before she died. This is because further investigation could make a finding of the kind Mr C wants. We could not now provide Mrs D with a remedy even if we investigated and found evidence of fault. Cambridgeshire County Council (21 017 132) Summary: Mr B complains on behalf of his adult son, Mr F, about the way the Council managed his transition to adult social care and that it failed to provide him with care and support from July to September 2021. We have found fault which has caused injustice to Mr B. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to acknowledge the distress caused. Kent County Council (21 017 835) Summary: The Care Provider acting on behalf of the Council failed to protect Mrs D's property and properly consider the decision not to allow her in communal areas of the care home. It also failed to follow medical advice in the last week of Mrs D's life and contact family members when Mrs D was administered end of life medication. As well as the actions already taken to address issues about missing items; the Council has agreed to apologise to the complainants, pay £500 to acknowledge the time, trouble, and uncertainty the Care Provider's actions have caused. It has also agreed through its contract monitoring to ensure the Care Provider reminds staff about risk assessing, following medical instructions, updating family, recording, and considering human rights when making decisions. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (22 003 257) Summary: Ms C complains about the withdrawal of services and standard of care provided to her mother, Ms D. The Council is at fault for failing to properly assess Ms D's needs. The Council commissioned Care Provider failed to properly communicate with the family and get advice about how to support Ms D. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms C and Ms D for the faults identified and pay Ms D £300 and Ms C £250 in acknowledgement of the injustice caused by these faults. This is in addition to procedural and training steps it has already agreed to take. Hallmark Care Homes (Banstead) Limited (22 005 563) Summary: Mr X complained about the quality of care his wife, Mrs X received whilst staying temporarily at the care home. This caused significant stress to Mrs and Mr X. We find fault by the care provider. The care provider has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and remind staff of relevant guidance. Nottinghamshire County Council (22 005 749) Summary: There is no fault by the Council in relation to its planning for the complainant's son's transition from children's to adult social care. Whilst only limited services have been provided since the complainant's son became 18, there is no fault by the Council as it offered suitable provision that the complainant would not accept until recently. Coventry City Council (22 011 521) Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about care provided to Ms B's father, Mr C. This is because we could not make a finding of the kind Ms B wants or add to the information she has received. There is no good reason for us to exercise our discretion to investigate this late complaint. West Northamptonshire Council (22 010 309) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to return personal belongings. That is because we could not add anything further to the Council's investigation. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (22 002 854) Summary: Mr B complained about the way the Council considered an application for a disabled facilities grant (DFG) to provide bathing facilities for his adult sister. He considered the Council did not follow the proper process or had due regard to all relevant matters when deciding on the scheme it considered appropriate. He said the proposed scheme would have an adverse impact on his mother because of the reduction in size of her bedroom. There was fault by the Council in the time taken to arrange the second appeal hearing but not in the consideration of the appropriate works. The Council will apologise to Mr B. East Sussex County Council (21 015 871) Summary: There was fault by the Council. It failed to take into account guidance in force during COVID-19 which allowed it to act flexibly and provide direct payments outside usual procedures. This was fault causing avoidable inconvenience and a financial loss to Ms X who paid for care from her own pocket. The Council needs to apologise, reimburse Ms X and give her a symbolic payment of £250 to reflect her avoidable inconvenience. Somerset County Council (22 001 565) Summary: Ms C complains the Care Provider acting on behalf of the Council failed to provide acceptable care to her late grandfather. The Care Provider is at fault for failing to properly record medication, nutrition, and wound interventions. Care staff did not always act professionally or adequately support Mr D when he was vulnerable. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to ensure the Care Provider makes procedural changes, provide staff training, and pay Ms C £500 to acknowledge her avoidable time, trouble, distress, and uncertainty. Surrey County Council (22 007 255) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the Council interfering with his rights as a deputy because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Derbyshire County Council (22 008 956) Summary: We are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council reached its decision to not to progress Miss X's safeguarding complaint. So, we will not investigate. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (21 017 330) Summary: Mrs B complained to the Ombudsmen that a Care Home provided inadequate care to her son. She complained this led to significant, life-changing consequences for him. We decided not to investigate Mrs B's complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would reach meaningful, evidence-based findings that the Care Home's actions caused Mr A a specific injustice. Leeds City Council (22 007 200) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker and an approved mental health professional, which resulted in the complainant's admission to hospital under the Mental Health Act. This is because an investigation is unlikely to find significant failings by the Council. 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