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. Coventry City Council (21 016 799) Summary: Ms C complained there was a lack of continuity in the homecare support provided to meet her partner's care needs. This meant he was not supported with the equipment he needed for his medical condition. Ms C said as a result her partner's life could have been at risk and, because she was the only person who could use the equipment, her return to work was delayed. There were failings in the care provider's communication with Ms C and in the Council's failure to provide a copy of the revised care plan. They will apologise to Ms C and pay her £200 to recognise her distress and inconvenience. Allied Healthcare (21 016 799a) Summary: Ms C complained there was a lack of continuity in the homecare support provided to meet her partner's care needs. This meant he was not supported with the equipment he needed for his medical condition. Ms C said as a result her partner's life could have been at risk and, because she was the only person who could use the equipment, her return to work was delayed. There were failings in the care provider's communication with Ms C and in the Council's failure to provide a copy of the revised care plan. They will apologise to Ms C and pay her £200 to recognise her distress and inconvenience. Kent Domiciliary Care Limited (22 012 594) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs B's Care Provider giving her notice to quit. This is because further investigation by us could not provide Mrs B or her family with a different outcome to that already given by the Care Provider. Kent County Council (22 002 630) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council's care provider, Harbledown Lodge: failed to care for her late mother properly, resulting in a decline in her condition; failed to respond properly to concerns about her care; and gave notice rather than address their concerns, causing unnecessary distress. The care provider did not fail to care for Mrs X's mother. However, it caused unnecessary distress by giving notice in the way that it did. The Council needs to apologise for the distress caused to Mrs X. North Yorkshire County Council (22 008 528) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has incorrectly charged for her father, Mr Y's, care home fees. Mrs X says this has caused her distress and she has taken time and trouble to complain. There was fault in the way the Council evidenced the amount owed and communicated this with Mrs X. This fault caused distress and uncertainty to Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Mrs X £150 and remind its staff of the importance of providing clear information in its communication with service users. New Care Lytham (OPCO) Limited (22 012 529) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care because the local authority safeguarding team would be better placed to consider the complaint. Isle of Wight Council (22 002 984) Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his mother-in-law, Mrs Y, that a residential care home unfairly refused to let Mrs Y return to the care home after a visit to hospital. There was no evidence of fault. Cheshire West & Chester Council (22 003 705) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council demanding payment for a residential nursing home Mr X and Mr Y's mother resided in. They also complain the nursing home provided inadequate care to their mother and that they were not given a choice in placing her in a nursing home. This is because the Council has started court proceedings to pursue the outstanding charges. In addition, on the other elements of the complaint, an investigation is not justified as we are unlikely to reach different findings or outcomes, and because any potential fault would not have caused any significant injustice. Liverpool City Council (22 003 957) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint how Mrs X's mother sustained an injury while she was at a care home. She says the injury could only have been caused by procedural failings or negligence. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused by the fault accepted. Kent County Council (22 008 271) Summary: Mr C complains Council charges were consistently wrong. This caused Mr C time and trouble. It also increased his pre-existing anxiety. The Council failed to bill Mr C correctly and take action to correct its mistakes expediently. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr C, pay him £200 and created a process for Mr C to follow to ensure bills are correct. It has also agreed to review how it responds to concerns, communicates with Mr C, and reminds the care agency about the importance of recording missed care calls. Lancashire County Council (22 010 039) Summary: We upheld Mr and Mrs X's complaints about the Council's failure to secure respite care for their adult son Mr Y and about the failure to secure Mr Y a supported living placement. This caused avoidable frustration and avoidable stress and pressure on the family. Provisionally, the Council will apologise, make symbolic payments and take action set out in this statement. West Sussex County Council (22 011 650) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to properly explain to her and her daughter what her daughter's assessed contributions were. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. In addition, any potential delay in informing Mrs X of her daughter's new assessed contributions has not caused any significant injustice. London Borough of Enfield (22 011 787) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's handling of his blue badge application. He says the Council failed to follow the Department of Transport's blue badge guidance when it considered his application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. In addition, there is no ongoing significant injustice to Mr X. East Sussex County Council (22 012 233) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failure to tell Ms B of her uncle's death because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. We could not add to the Council's investigation or reach a different outcome. London Borough of Waltham Forest (21 012 904) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a data breach. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice. In addition, the Council has provided a fair response. North Yorkshire County Council (22 004 888) Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to provide him with an adequate care package and adaptations to his house to enable him to live independently. We find the Council was at fault as there was a delay in allocating a social worker and putting a care package in place for Mr B. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Liverpool City Council (22 007 245) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about intimidation by the Council because the issues are not ongoing and there is no worthwhile outcome we can achieve. Moors Park (Bishopsteignton) Limited (22 007 700) Summary: We upheld Mrs X's complaint. There was a failure to give her timely information about her late mother Mrs Y being in arrears of care fees and this may have affected the date the local authority calculated Mrs Y's assets to have fallen to the funding threshold. The Care Provider will write to the local authority explaining what has happened, apologise to Mrs X and make her a symbolic payment of £100 for her avoidable confusion and time and trouble complaining. Grangefield Care Limited (22 011 795) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about injuries sustained from a fall while living in a residential care home. Further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. Buckinghamshire Council (22 012 163) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision not to carry out safeguarding enquiries. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision not to start a safeguarding enquiry. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (22 012 225) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the way the Council and its assessors decide the care levels of residents at the property where he lives with Mrs X, and the Council's response to his complaint. Even if the Council's process involved fault, the matter does not cause a significant personal injustice to Mr or Mrs X to warrant us investigating. We do not investigate complaints about councils' complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issue which gave rise to the complaint. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (22 002 692) Summary: Mrs X complained a care home did not act quickly following her mother's fall, resulting in her condition deteriorating and causing distress. We found no fault in the Council's actions to support Mrs X but we found fault because it did not keep care records secure. We have recommended it provides an apology and takes action to address this. Care UK Community Partnerships Limited (22 002 976) Summary: Mrs X complains about the care provided to her mother (Mrs Y) at Sherwood Grange Care Home (the Home), in London, and the decision to end her contract. We find fault with the Home, causing Mrs X distress. We have suggested remedies for this injustice. Hertfordshire County Council (22 005 386) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that a care home delayed in informing him that emergency COVID-19 funding for his mother had stopped and she was now a self-funder. Mr X has agreed to a final settlement on costs so there is no significant unremedied injustice for the Ombudsman to investigate. Cornwall Council (22 007 577) Summary: The complainant, Mrs X, complained about the quality of home care, the Council's commissioned care provider, Penhellis Community Care Ltd (Roche), provided to her late husband, Mr X. We find the Council was at fault. This caused distress to Mrs and Mr X. To address the injustice caused by fault, the Council has agreed to apologise, make symbolic payments and remind staff of relevant guidance. 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