Thursday, June 1, 2023

New adult social care complaint decisions

adult social care

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.

  • Central Bedfordshire Council (22 017 817)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Transport 18-Apr-2023

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's processing of his blue badge application, its decision to refuse it, and the delay in determining it. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council which affected the blue badge decision to warrant investigation. The Council has apologised to Mr X for the time taken to decide his application and there is no different outcome an investigation would achieve on this issue.

  • Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (22 017 174)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Assessment and care plan 18-Apr-2023

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care, specifically mental capacity to decide where to live. There is not enough evidence of fault in the process the Council followed to make its decision Ms C had capacity to decide where to live. Mr B felt excluded; the Council has apologised for that. It is unlikely we could add to the Council's detailed responses to Mr B's complaint or reach a different outcome.

  • Cornwall Council (22 012 607)

    Statement Upheld Charging 18-Apr-2023

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to deal properly with the valuation of her late father's beneficial interest in the property he had lived in with his wife. When Mrs X questioned the Council's valuation, it failed to get an independent valuation. That leaves doubt over the true value of the father's interest in the property when his wife died. The Council needs to remedy that by getting an independent valuation.

  • Warwickshire County Council (22 013 200)

    Statement Upheld Charging 18-Apr-2023

    Summary: The Council failed to properly communicate its decision about a property disregard. This has caused the complainant time and trouble in understanding the decision and a potential lost opportunity to present information. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to apologise to the complainant, provide a decision letter which fully explains its decision and remind staff about the need to communicate complete, reasoned decisions.

  • Manchester City Council (22 017 372)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 17-Apr-2023

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to reject Dr X's application for a disabled facilities grant. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault with the Council's actions.

  • Kent County Council (22 012 006)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 17-Apr-2023

    Summary: Mr X, on behalf of his wife, complained the Council asked them to sign a charging letter for a package of care without completing a financial assessment or giving any indication of what the cost would be. The Ombudsman does not intend to pursue this complaint further as the Council has provided a suitable remedy by apologising, cancelling the first invoice and making a goodwill gesture of £50.

  • Lancashire County Council (22 013 315)

    Statement Not upheld Charging 17-Apr-2023

    Summary: Ms X complained that the Council unfairly decided to treat her mother's former home as notional capital and her gifting of it to her son as a deliberate deprivation of an asset. The Council was not at fault.

  • London Borough of Tower Hamlets (21 018 271)

    Statement Upheld Charging 17-Apr-2023

    Summary: Miss Y complained about how the Council calculated what her friend Mrs X should pay towards her care. The Council was not at fault in how it decided what Mrs X should pay. The Council was, however, at fault for failing to ensure Mrs X received some of the support in her care plan. The Council will apologise and pay Mrs X £250 in recognition of the frustration this caused.

  • Leicestershire County Council (22 017 494)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 17-Apr-2023

    Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint that the Council wrongly calculated her father's care home fees. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

  • Isle of Wight Council (22 017 405)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 16-Apr-2023

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint from Mr B that he was prevented from seeing his mother. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's actions, who completed the correct process to decide Mr B's mother had capacity to decide whether to see Mr B. Further investigation would not add to the Council's investigation or reach a different outcome.

  • St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (22 005 442)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 16-Apr-2023

    Summary: There was no fault in the care provided to Mrs X's grandmother (Mrs Y) in the period after she had sustained an injury. The Council-commissioned care provider took steps to ensure the care was in line with Mrs Y's wishes, and it updated her care and support plan. There was also no fault in how the Council responded to Mrs X's safeguarding concerns or how it communicated the outcome.

  • Derbyshire County Council (22 009 287)

    Statement Not upheld Disabled facilities grants 16-Apr-2023

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not assist with the extra cost of using electric heaters whilst he was waiting for disabled adaptations. The Council was not at fault.

  • West Berkshire Council (22 012 930)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 16-Apr-2023

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging for home care services provided to the complainant's late father. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

  • Lion Care Essex Ltd (22 016 043)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 16-Apr-2023

    Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Care Provider raising safeguarding concerns about Mr X in 2021. There is not a good reason for the delay in Mr X complaining.

  • Cheshire East Council (22 017 757)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 13-Apr-2023

    Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint that the Council wrongly decided she deprived her mother of assets to avoid care charges. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

  • City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (22 008 066)

    Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 13-Apr-2023

    Summary: Mr D complains on behalf of his disabled son about the Council's decision to refuse to fund previously agreed home adaptations. We found fault by the Council which raised Mr D's expectations and caused him time and trouble. The Council has agreed to make a payment to remedy that injustice. It will also complete the process for considering Mr D's application for a discretionary disabled facilities grant.

  • West Sussex County Council (22 009 538)

    Statement Upheld Charging 13-Apr-2023

    Summary: Mrs X complained about delays by the Council in confirming that it no longer included household expenses in its financial assessments. The Council was at fault for delays and for failing to properly consider household expenses as part of a financial assessment. The Council agreed to provide a suitable remedy.

  • Cheshire East Council (22 010 569)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 13-Apr-2023

    Summary: Ms K complained the Council and its social worker failed its social care duties towards her daughter. We did not find enough evidence of fault in the processes the Council followed to reach its view. We cannot therefore criticise the merits of its decision. There was some fault in how it progressed and communicated a charity's grant. The Council agree to make payment to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty this caused Ms K.

  • Birmingham City Council (22 010 578)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Residential care 13-Apr-2023

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the care his mother Ms Y received from the Council commissioned Care Provider. This is because we would be unlikely to provide a worthwhile outcome for him.

  • Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (22 017 314)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Residential care 12-Apr-2023

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about meeting adult social care needs, because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and further investigation will not lead to a different outcome. There is no evidence of a wider public interest to warrant us investigating at this time.

  • London Borough of Enfield (22 009 058)

    Statement Upheld Charging 12-Apr-2023

    Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of Mrs Y. She complained Mrs Y unexpectedly received a large bill for residential care without having any information about charges from the Council. Mrs X also complained Mrs Y had to stay in the care home despite wanting to go home. Mrs X says this caused her and Mrs Y distress when they received the large bill. There was fault in the way the Council delayed completing an assessment and did not listen to Mrs Y's wishes. Mrs X and Mrs Y suffered distress receiving the large bill. The Council should only charge Mrs Y the non-residential contribution for her care while she remained in the care home after expressing her wish to leave.

  • Superior Care (Midlands) Limited (22 014 579)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 12-Apr-2023

    Summary: Ms X complains Superior Care (Midlands) Limited (the care provider), has failed to refund money her mother paid for her care when it received backdated payments for NHS Funded Nursing Care. The evidence does not support the claim that her mother was paying for Funded Nursing Care, so there are no grounds to ask the care provider to refund money to her. Nevertheless, the failure to provide a contract for her care for over a year caused avoidable confusion and contributed to the time and trouble Ms X has been put to in pursuing the complaint. The care provider needs to apologise and make a symbolic payment.


 


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 GovDelivery logo

No comments:

Post a Comment