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.   Dorset Council (22 000 568) Summary: Mr B complained about a Hospital Trust's decision to discharge his late father, Mr G, home from hospital in October 2020. He also complained about the community health and social care support provided to his father by a Community Trust and the Council. We did not find evidence of fault in the actions of the Community Trust. There was fault in the way the Hospital Trust and the Council dealt with Mr G's discharge arrangements including how they considered the impact of the caring role on Mrs G, his wife. The Hospital Trust and the Council have agreed to our recommendations and will apologise to Mr B and Mrs G. They will also make a symbolic payment of £250 each to Mrs G to acknowledge the adverse impact the faults had on her. Lancashire County Council (22 009 369) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council in securing the payment of care fees. That is because the complaint is late. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (22 010 301) Summary: Ms X, on behalf of her sister Ms y, complained the Council failed to meet Ms Y's eligible care needs and relied on Ms X to fill the gap even though she has her own health problems causing distress. For a period from December 2021 the Council struggled to find carers to work with Ms Y meaning her care needs were not met. It also failed to take action in respect of direct payments so Ms Y could employ her own personal assistant. London Borough of Redbridge (22 010 576) Summary: Mr D complained about the Council's decision to remove a camera he had installed in his son's room in the care home where he lives. We found it was fault not to take a best interest decision about this. But this fault has not caused injustice to Mr D or his son as it is likely the decision would have been for the camera to be removed. West Sussex County Council (22 012 800) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to advise her, or her father, about her father's care charges for seven months after the Council started to provide him with care resulting in a large backdated bill. We found fault with the Council for delays in completing Ms X's father's financial assessment. The Council agreed to reduce Ms X's father's charges by 50% from 14 September 2021 to 31 March 2022. London Borough of Hounslow (22 017 749) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the content of an adult social care needs assessment completed in July 2020. This is because the complaint is late. Gloucestershire County Council (22 017 921) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaints, on behalf of his mother, Mrs Y, about Gloucestershire County Council and Gloucestershire Health and Care NHS Foundation Trust. Mr X should have complained to us sooner. Oxfordshire County Council (23 000 227) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's invoicing system. This is because further investigation could not add to the Council's response or make a finding of the kind Mrs B wants. Mrs Anita Larkin (23 000 300) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the respite care provided to Mr X's late mother. We could not achieve a meaningful outcome by investigating. Derbyshire County Council (23 000 606) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint about lack of support given to her late mother-in-law's, Mrs C's, family. This is because the Council has acknowledged its failings and apologised. We are satisfied this remedies the injustice caused by the fault. B & M Hemel LLP (22 010 998) Summary: The care provider put in place 1:1 care and notified relatives appropriately when Mrs X showed suicidal ideation. The care provider also involved the mental health services promptly. West Sussex County Council (22 016 051) Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mrs B's complaint about how the Council charged her daughter for her care and support. Since Mrs B complained to us the Council has responded to Mrs B and dealt with her complaint. It would be now be reasonable for Mrs B to ask for the Council to review the complaint if she is still dissatisfied. Burnham Lodge Limited (22 018 198) Summary: We will not investigate Ms C's complaint about care provided to the late Mrs B. This is because further investigation could not add to the Care Provider's response or make a different finding of the kind Ms C wants. Care UK Community Partnerships Limited (23 000 059) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about management of diabetes within a care home. The Care Provider has accepted fault and will improve practice. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further. Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust (23 000 514) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X being blocked from having access to information about his disabled partner. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Liverpool City Council (23 000 561) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council contacting another authority without Mr X's consent. This is because the Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider the complaint. Somerset County Council (21 016 864) Summary: The Council was at fault for the way it delivered care to Mr B for long periods between March and November 2021. Care visits were regularly too early, delayed or missed altogether, and – despite the Council's best efforts – for two months Mr B had no weekend care at all. Because the lack of alternatives, the Council also left Mr B in a position where he felt he had to accept a direct payment. It has agreed to apologise and to make a symbolic payment to recognise Mr B's injustice. Luton Borough Council (22 005 168) Summary: Mr X complains the Council delayed assessing his mother's needs, suspended her direct payments, despite the fact she continued to have eligible care needs, failed to reinstate them and failed to respond to his complaints, leaving his mother paying for her own care. The Council delayed assessing his mother's needs, leaving the family to make their own arrangements, failed to respond properly to Mr X's complaints, and refused to backdate its payments based on inaccurate information. To remedy the injustice caused by it failings, the Council needs to apologise and backdate the direct payments to October 2021. The Council was not at fault for suspending the direct payments when the family employed someone who was not eligible to work in the UK. Nor was it a fault for refusing to reinstate the direct payments when the family wanted to use a care provider for which Mr X is a director. London Borough of Islington (22 011 790) Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to provide him with refresher mobility training when he asked for it in September 2022. Based on the evidence seen so far, despite identifying eligible care needs, the Council failed to produce a care and support plan for Mr X explaining how it would meet them. This has left him without the support he needs. The Council needs to apologise, produce a care and support plan and make a symbolic payment to him. North Yorkshire County Council (22 017 203) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to consider Ms B's application for an increase in contractual rates. This is because the Council has now considered Ms B's application so there is no unremedied injustice for us to consider. Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (22 017 569) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about outstanding payments to adult social care workers and to HMRC. This is because the Council is not responsible for such payments, the person managing the direct payment account is the employer. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an Ombudsman investigation. Shropshire Council (22 018 186) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's procedures for financial assessments. We could not achieve the outcome Mr X seeks. Bristol City Council (22 005 619) Summary: The Council failed to act proactively to consider what reasonable adjustments were required as part of a social care financial assessment in June 2019. As a result, Mr X who has learning difficulties and cannot read, attended alone and information was provided in writing. For subsequent financial assessments, the Council arranged for an advocate to assist Mr X. A suitable remedy for the uncertainty, distress and confusion caused is agreed. Leicestershire County Council (22 012 153) Summary: Miss Y complains about the Council's decision to include the value of her mother's property as notional capital when assessing her finances for social care. The Council reviewed its decision but maintained that Mrs Y intentionally deprived herself of capital to avoid paying care fees. We have reviewed the Council's decision making and, in our view, there is no evidence of fault. However, the Council did delay in making its decision which the Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment for. London Borough of Hackney (22 012 252) Summary: Ms X complained about the delays with her occupational therapy assessment and for the time the Council said it would take to complete the adaptations to her property. There was no significant excessive delay for the overall adaptations works to be completed. However, there is fault by the Council with delays processing Ms X's occupational therapy assessment referral and this caused uncertainty, distress, and frustration for her. The Council has agreed to a revised financial payment to remedy the injustice caused. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (22 012 460) Summary: We have ended our investigation into Ms X's complaint about the Council's involvement in various issues relating to her adult daughter as there is nothing more we could achieve by further investigation. Buckinghamshire Council (22 013 776) Summary: There is evidence of delay by the Council in processing Ms X's direct payments. It also delayed in allocating her a named worker. Birmingham City Council (22 015 028) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council delaying in removing Mrs X's son from a placement she considered was not providing appropriate care. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome. In addition, there is no ongoing significant injustice. Lancashire County Council (23 000 266) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council introducing a charge for telecare services. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. The Council followed the correct process to decide its change of policy, so the Ombudsman cannot criticise it. London Borough of Bexley (22 001 780) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the amount Mrs Y was asked to contribute to her residential placement. That is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Her daughter Mrs X can ask the Council to review the financial assessment if she believes it is based on incorrect information. London Borough of Hillingdon (22 011 685) Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of her disabled daughter, Miss Y that the Council did not carry out a proper Occupational Therapist assessment of her needs before approving further Disabled Facilities Grant funded works. Ms X also complained the Council did not take sufficient account of her views regarding her daughter's needs. We found fault by the Council and the Council has agreed to provide an apology and a financial remedy. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (22 013 470) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council has failed to provide her mother with additional care hours during the week and failed to provide a sit in service at the weekend. We find the Council was at fault for failing to complete a carer's assessment. This caused significant stress to Mrs X. We make several recommendations to address this injustice caused by fault. Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (22 015 015) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about safeguarding following an incident in private residential care. This is because we are satisfied by the actions already taken so investigation would not lead to a different outcome, that there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and we cannot investigate complaints about personnel issues. London Borough of Harrow (22 018 200) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's treatment of Mr X's two adult children, who have Down's syndrome, on the day he was arrested. This is because the complaint is about matters that happened more than 12 months ago and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint. In addition, an investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (22 013 845) Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it dealt with the charges for Mrs Y's care. There is some evidence of poor communication with Mrs Y's representative and for this it should apologise. Cornwall Council (22 004 186) Summary: The Council was at fault. It failed to review Ms X's care and support plan to see if it needed revising. This means the financial assessment of her disability expenses was based on out-of-date information about her activities. The fault caused avoidable uncertainty and time and trouble complaining. The Council will apologise, complete a review of the care and support plan, reconsider her disability expenses and backdate them where appropriate. 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