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 Croydon (21 014 792) Summary: Ms B complains the Council did not ensure her son, Y, received adequate support. She says the Council initially refused a new support centre placement and did not carry out a proper transition to another placement. Ms B says this led to increased problems with Y's behaviour and mental wellbeing. Ms B also says the Council failed to provide 17 hours of additional care by direct payments. We find fault in how the Council managed Ms B's request for alternative provision and transport for Y. Telford & Wrekin Council (22 005 898) Summary: There is no evidence the Council failed to safeguard the late Mr X. The records show he had capacity to make his own decisions about his finances, however unwise they may have appeared. Wiltshire Council (22 007 496) Summary: Mrs B complains the Council failed on a number of points regarding the implementation of the 2014 Care Act when assessing her mother. I have discontinued the Ombudsman's investigation as I do not have enough information to make enquiries. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (22 008 948) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the outcome of his brother's occupational therapy assessment in relation to his request for major adaptations to his home. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council in how it made its decision. Essex County Council (22 010 085) Summary: We have found fault by the Council in the process of transferring Mr Y's direct payment which caused his mother Ms X avoidable distress and time and trouble complaining. We have not found fault in the process of assessing Mr Y's charge. The Council will apologise and pay Ms X £150 to reflect the injustice. Lancashire County Council (22 010 659) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's care assessment of Ms X's brother-in-law. She says the care assessment was inadequate. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Ash Croft Care Limited (22 011 719) Summary: We will not investigate Mr D's complaint about Mr B's Care Provider's refusal to take him back into the home when he was ready for discharge from hospital. This is because further investigation could not add to the Care Provider's response or make a different finding. Age Gracefully Limited (22 011 954) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr B's carer breaking his television. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The courts deal with claims for damages, and it would be reasonable for Mr B's representatives to ask the court to consider his claim. Warrington Council (22 012 055) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint that the Council delayed in provided support to her and her family in relation to her mother's care home fees. An investigation is unlikely to achieve anything further and in any case there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Suffolk County Council (21 002 128) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her with adequate care and support. We found fault with the Council for failing to complete a suitable review of Ms X's care needs and delays in providing direct payments. The Council agreed to our recommendation to backdate Ms X's care fees for her missed therapy support, apologise to Ms X and pay her £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused. The Council also agreed to provide training to staff about the importance of accurate record keeping. West Sussex County Council (21 014 125) Summary: Ms Y complains about the care her mother, Ms C, received at a care home commissioned by the Council. Ms Y says the Home did not isolate Ms C from other residents when there was a Covid-19 outbreak. She says Ms C caught the virus, following which her health deteriorated. Ms Y complains about how the Home managed Ms C's food and fluids after it identified she was near end of life and that it applied its visitation policy inconsistently. We find fault in how the Home managed Ms C's care during the Covid-19 outbreak. We do not find fault in the Home's decisions around food and fluids but have found fault in the records for four days. We have not found fault in how the Home applied its visitation policy. Leeds City Council (22 006 315) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's blanket policy requiring him to apply for deputyship before it would carry out a financial assessment to determine his mother's contribution to her care costs. The Council was at fault for not explaining why it would not exercise discretion to depart from its usual policy in this case. It was also at fault for a delay in responding to the complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process. The faults caused frustration and additional time and trouble for Mr X. The Council will apologise, pay him £300 and make review its processes. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (22 010 375) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's adult social care assessment. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. North Yorkshire County Council (22 012 184) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about inappropriate comments made to Mr X by a care provider staff member. This is because we are not able to provide the outcome he seeks. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (22 012 444) Summary: We decided not to investigate this complaint about unfair visiting restrictions in a care home. This is because an investigation is unlikely to find the care home's actions caused a significant injustice. Warwickshire County Council (22 000 492) Summary: Mr Y complained about the Council's decision to make a Prevent referral for his adult son, Mr X. Mr Y also complained about a lack of support after the referral. There was no fault in the Council's decision to make a Prevent referral. However, the Council was at fault for failing to promptly notify Mr X about the outcome and for failing to support him throughout the process. The Council agreed to apologise and make a remedy payment to Mr X. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (22 000 958) Summary: Mrs X complained about how much the Council charged Mr Y for his care. We find that while the Council's response did not provide the clarity she needed, it had previously made every effort to explain. We therefore find no fault. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (22 003 504) Summary: The Council was at fault when the care provider acting on its behalf wrongly billed a deceased resident's family for outstanding care fees. The Council also failed to identify during its complaints process that it was the organisation responsible for the total cost of the placement and instead passed the responsibility for some of the outstanding fees onto the resident's family. These faults caused the family avoidable distress and inconvenience. The action the Council intends to take is sufficient to remedy this injustice. The Council has also agreed to carry out our recommended service improvements to prevent recurrence of the same faults in future. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (22 003 803) Summary: Mrs X complained about the quality of care provided to Mrs Y in Castle Meadows Care Home which was closed down due to concerns. She says Mrs Y lost her mobility and developed a grade 4 pressure sore while there and had to move at short notice. We find the care fell below the required standards and Mrs Y was put at an increased risk of harm. We recommended the Council apologise, pay her £400 in recognition of this and review its commissioning policy. It has agreed to do this. Lakeland Care Services Limited (22 005 950) Summary: Mrs Y complained the Care Provider unfairly charged additional fees when her mother moved to a smaller room in her care home. We found fault with the Care Provider's administrative practices as it could not provide evidence to justify the increased costs and did not give prior notice to Mrs Y about them. There was further fault with poor complaint handling. The Care Provider has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused. Suffolk County Council (22 011 192) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint as it relates to care and treatment provided more than 12 months ago. These matters are late for our consideration. Staffordshire County Council (22 011 771) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in carrying out a financial assessment. The Council has already carried out an investigation and offered Mrs X a suitable remedy. Further investigation would achieve nothing more. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 015 869) Summary: Ms C complained about the lack of support she has received and the amount she has to contribute towards her care. We have found fault with the actions of the Council, as a result of which it has agreed to reimburse Ms C for the money she has spent on private cleaners. Cheshire East Council (21 019 021) Summary: Ms C complains about the failure of the Council to carry out adaptations properly. The Council is at fault for failing to provide a schedule of works, delayed in starting work and an officer making an unannounced visit. The Council has made a concerted effort to find the cause of an ongoing bad odour, I cannot say on balance, its contractors caused the problem. To remedy the faults identified the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms C and her mother and pay £500 for their time, trouble, and avoidable distress. Essex County Council (21 016 639) Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of her father, Mr Y, about the Council-commissioned home care provided to him at weekends. Ms X says the care provided at weekends was rushed and caused harm to Mr Y. We found fault by the Council and the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr Y and review the charges made by the care provider. Akari Care Limited (22 005 118) Summary: Mrs C complained her husband was able to leave the care home without staff noticing it. We have upheld the complaint. London Borough of Newham (22 011 114) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has responded to concerns about residential care. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Sheffield City Council (22 011 203) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about her mother's care provider. She says the care provider overcharged her mother and failed to provide adequate care. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable from an investigation. In addition, it is unlikely we would reach any different findings. Leicestershire County Council (22 011 908) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the actions of her son's transport company. She says it failed to follow his transport risk assessment which led to an incident where her son exited the vehicle unsupervised and entered the wrong address. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome. In addition, we could not achieve the outcomes Mrs X wants. Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (22 012 036) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider's refusal to accept a resident back from hospital after their needs changed, because we could not add to the Care Provider's investigation or reach a different outcome. North Yorkshire County Council (21 015 815) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council did not allow for Mr Y's contribution to household costs in his financial assessment and did not tell her that he would have to contribute towards his care. She says this led to Mr Y having a large debt with the Council and caused significant stress to the whole family. We find the Council was at fault in changing its approach to this without explanation. We recommended the Council apologise, pay a sum to recognise the impact of this, and review how it will ensure Mr Y can contribute to household costs. It has agreed to do this. Brighton & Hove City Council (22 005 934) Summary: Mr C complained on behalf of Mr D about the actions of the Council in respect of providing care and support to Mr D. We cannot investigate the complaint because Mr C and Mr D have issued civil claims in the County Court. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (22 007 210) Summary: Mrs B complained on behalf of Mrs C that the Council had placed Mrs C in a nursing home where she did not receive adequate care resulting in admission to hospital. We have not found fault with the actions of the Council. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (22 008 800) Summary: Mrs Z complained on behalf of Mr X that the Council had failed to arrange education and social care provision in accordance with his EHCP. We cannot investigate the complaint because Mr X has taken Judicial Review proceedings. London Borough of Southwark (22 010 814) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to renew the complainant's Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Redcar & Cleveland Council (22 011 514) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about poor care provided to Mrs X's great uncle by his care provider. This is because an investigation would not lead to different findings or outcomes. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (22 011 538) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of Mrs X's son's support workers while they were on holiday. This is because an investigation is unlikely to lead to different findings or outcomes. 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