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. Surrey County Council (22 014 985) Summary: Mr X complained the Council reduced the support provided to him through his care plan so was not meeting his eligible care needs. The Council was not at fault. Cambridgeshire County Council (22 016 448) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about contribution towards adult social care fees. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. The Council has completed the financial assessment in line with the law, government guidance, and its policy. London Borough of Croydon (23 004 157) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's alleged failure to safeguard Ms X because there is not enough evidence of fault. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (23 004 947) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about her blue badge application. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Wayside Care Limited (22 012 009) Summary: The Care Provider's contract does not meet Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) guidelines as it charges for 28 days after a resident has died. The Care Provider has agreed to apologise to the complainant, refund fees, and review its contract for existing and future residents. Westminster City Council (22 012 216) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care in a residential care home, because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. The person has since died and there is nothing we can achieve by investigation. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (22 012 365) Summary: There were significant delays in the Council's assessments of Mr B's needs and reviews of his care plan. The Council also sometimes failed to properly explain how it had considered Mr B's needs and how it had reached the decisions. The Council has agreed to apologise, to pay a financial remedy, to review the care plan and provide training to relevant staff. East Sussex County Council (23 002 495) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council. Berkley Care Ryefield Limited (23 002 551) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care and the cost of care provided to Mrs C by her care provider. This is because further investigation by us could not add to the Care Provider's responses or make a different finding of the kind Ms D wants. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (23 003 532) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's alleged failure to inform Mrs Y that a temporary placement for her father Mr X would be chargeable. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault with the Council's actions. Worcestershire County Council (23 004 373) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint that the Council deprived her late mother of her liberty when it placed her in a care home against her will. The decision was made by the Court of Protection and we cannot investigate complaints about what happened in court. We will also not investigate Ms X's complaint about the actions taken by the Council to recover the care fees owed. There is not enough evidence to justify investigating. London Borough of Lambeth (22 015 230) Summary: We found no fault by the Council and Trust with regards to the care they provided to Miss T when she became unwell. North Northamptonshire Council (22 016 534) Summary: This complaint about care home fees from 7 years ago is too long ago for there to be any worthwhile outcome from an investigation. The complainants are both deceased, so even if there was fault, the injustice cannot be remedied. Malhotra Care Homes Limited (23 002 592) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about his brother's (Mr Y's) care home fees. This is because the matter has not caused Mr Y any significant personal injustice which is serious enough to warrant an investigation. London Borough of Croydon (23 003 311) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint that the Council failed to meet Mr Y's care needs. This is because any fault has caused insufficient injustice to warrant further investigation. Kent County Council (23 003 599) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs C's complaint about the way the Council carried out Occupational Therapy assessments. This is because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an ombudsman investigation. Surrey County Council (23 003 962) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failure to complete an adult social care needs assessment. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by investigation. The person has since died and no longer needs an assessment, and we could not say the outcome would be any different had an assessment taken place at the relevant time. Gloucestershire County Council (22 009 186) Summary: There is no evidence the commissioned care provider failed to give a good standard of care and treatment to the late Mx X. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (22 009 652) Summary: We found fault with the Council in the quality of care provided by Moorview Care Limited (the Care Provider) to Mrs X's late brother Mr Y. The Council's fault caused Mrs X injustice. We recommend the Council apologise, make a symbolic payment for Mrs X's distress and robustly monitor the Care Provider's improvements. Westminster City Council (22 010 081) Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's handling of housing and adult social care. There appears no fault in the way the Council reached its decision not to accept Mr X on its housing register. Wakefield City Council (22 015 492) Summary: Mrs X complained about the quality of home care provided to her by the Council's commissioned care provider, Choices Homecare. She also said the care provider failed to properly address her complaint. We find the Council was fault. This caused distress to Mrs X. The Council has agreed to several recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (23 003 906) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about how the Council handled his blue badge application. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Resolution Care Ltd (23 003 997) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the standard of care delivered by a home care provider. We cannot consider personnel matters and there is another body better placed to consider a complaint about standards of care. East Sussex County Council (22 005 731) Summary: The Council is at fault for failing to properly assess and put in preventative measures to support a person in need with fluctuating capacity. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr D and Ms C and make a symbolic payment for the distress caused by the Council's failures. It will work with Mr D to assess and plan future services, review procedures, remind staff about the importance of considering preventive measures and review processes when a person's circumstances change. Lancashire County Council (23 003 380) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the content of adult social records and what the Care Provider said happened. This is because these actions did not cause the injustice of not seeing a family member after their death. We could not achieve the wanted outcome of correcting what the Care Provider said, or the Council's or Care Provider's case recordings. Durham County Council (23 003 533) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions as a financial deputy. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Salford City Council (23 000 462) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of Mr Y's care in a care home and referrals to an NHS Trust's falls team. This is because the coroner is still looking into related issues. Ms X can complain to us after the results of the coroner's inquest are known. 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