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. North Lincolnshire Council (23 001 715) Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council backdated the charges for Mrs X's placement at the care home. South Coast Care Homes Ltd (23 007 284) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider's alleged failure to provide free transport for Mr X's medical appointments. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault with the Care Provider's actions. London Borough of Camden (23 007 674) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to provide overnight care as the complaint relates to events which took place more than 12 months ago and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate them now. North Yorkshire Council (23 007 954) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging Mr X for the care and support services he received. He considers his care and support should be paid for by the NHS. This is because there is another body better placed to consider Mr X's complaint. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault with the Council's action. Staffordshire County Council (22 015 416) Summary: The Council was in error by failing to send out the financial assessment at the right time. The delay caused confusion and a large back-dated bill. The Council agrees to apologise, offer a payment in recognition of the distress caused by its actions and put in place a suitable instalment plan for the payment of the assessed contribution. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (23 001 344) Summary: We upheld complaints made by Mrs D concerning the Council's assessment of her mother's care needs in May 2022 and that it did not fully refund money spent on her care as a result. Also, that it was at fault for how it assessed her late father's care needs in June and August 2022. These faults caused a loss of service and distress. The Council accepts these findings and at the end of this statement, we set out the actions it has agreed to take to remedy that injustice and improve services to avoid a repeat. Country Court Care Homes 2 Ltd (23 001 811) Summary: The Care Provider has failed to show that Mrs X has received the appropriate nursing care all the time she has been resident in the care home. It failed to communicate properly with her son Mr A about his mother's care and did not review her needs properly. Senior managers have apologised to Mr A for the failure to provide the contracted nursing care and waived one month's fees. The care provider should take steps to ensure appropriate reviews and improve communication. London Borough of Newham (23 003 497) Summary: Mr D complains the Council wrongly refused an application for a Freedom Pass. The Council is at fault for failing to consider medical information or refer Mr D for a mobility assessment when deciding whether to issue a Freedom Pass. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to issue Mr D a Freedom Pass and make a symbolic payment to him for his time, trouble, and frustration. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 006 435) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's decision to reject her blue badge application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. London Borough of Enfield (23 006 522) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about errors in the Council's administration of her relative, Y's, direct payments. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants. Cumberland Council (23 006 593) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care charges. The Council can legally charge for care, and there is no dispute Mr C received care. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve the desired outcome of waiving those charges. The Council accepted some poor communication with Mr B and has apologised to him, it is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further. West Sussex County Council (23 007 020) Summary: Mrs X is the shared carer for an adult, Miss A. We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about delay in the Council taking action to finalise who will manage Miss A's financial matters. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. London Borough of Bromley (23 008 619) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to Miss X's complaints about a neighbour. This is because an investigation will not achieve anything worthwhile. Central Bedfordshire Council (21 018 989) Summary: Mrs O complained about arrangements for her late mother's discharge from hospital to a care home during the COVID-19 pandemic. She said her mother was too unwell to be discharged and should have stayed in hospital. Mrs O also complained about her mother's care at the care home. Mrs W's health deteriorated within a few days of leaving hospital and she died. We did not find evidence of fault by the organisations. Moorland Gardens Care Home (21 018 989a) Summary: Mrs O complained about arrangements for her late mother's discharge from hospital to a care home during the COVID-19 pandemic. She said her mother was too unwell to be discharged and should have stayed in hospital. Mrs O also complained about her mother's care at the care home. Mrs W's health deteriorated within a few days of leaving hospital and she died. We did not find evidence of fault by the organisations. Norfolk County Council (22 017 171) Summary: Mr B complained about the standard of care his late father, Mr C received in a residential care home and about the information he received relating to his father's financial assessment and contribution towards the care charges. On the evidence available we found some fault. We have asked the Council to pay Mr B £500 and improve its procedures for the future. Leeds City Council (22 018 184) Summary: Mr X complained a care provider acting on behalf of the Council failed to appropriately support his mother, Mrs Y. The Council was at fault for the care provider's failure to give Mrs Y a full course of medication and failure to properly record the care it gave her. The Council was also at fault in how it considered two safeguarding referrals it received about Mrs Y's care. The fault meant Mrs Y was put at risk of harm and caused Mr X distress, uncertainty and frustration. To remedy that injustice, the Council should apologise, pay Mr X £700 and work with the care provider to review how it records the care it provides. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (23 001 805) Summary: Ms D complained the Council delayed investigating a safeguarding Concern which meant Ms X was at risk of harm for longer than necessary. Ms D says an earlier investigation could have prevented further injury. The Council are at fault for delay in investigating the Concern. There is no evidence this led to further harm. The delay caused distress for Ms D. Leeds City Council (23 005 888) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council assessed Mr X's adult social care needs. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early. Gloucestershire County Council (22 009 559) Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council assessed Mr Y's disability-related expenditure. This meant Mr Y had to contribute more to his care costs than he should have and caused Mrs X distress for the time she has spent pursuing this with the Council. We have found the Council at fault for the time taken to decide Mr Y's disability-related expenditure and for the way it assessed some items of disability-related expenditure. The Council agreed to apologise for the time taken to assess Mr Y's disability-related expenditure, make payments to Mr Y and Mrs X for the distress caused and to reconsider some items of Mr Y's disability-related expenditure. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (22 014 708) Summary: Mrs X complained about the standard of care provided to her late uncle, Mr Y, by the care provider and its poor communication with the family. She also complained about the care provider's refusal to take Mr Y back into the care home after he was discharged from the hospital in March 2022. There were some faults by the care provider with the standard of care it provided to Mr Y, its record keeping and its poor communication with Mr Y's family. This caused injustice to Mr Y and his family, including Mrs X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused. Change, Grow, Live (23 004 052) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a delay in medication being prescribed. This matter is not within our jurisdiction and the complaint should instead be made to the Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman. London Borough of Newham (23 006 236) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in the Council completing a care assessment for Mr X's son and in implementing a support package to meet his son's needs. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Oxfordshire County Council (23 007 197) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint that the Council wrongly refused her son a place in one of its specialist supported living facilities. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (21 017 488) Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council charged her late father Mr Y for his care and support, its failure to pay towards his care and support and about the lack of respite support provided to her as his main carer. There was no fault in the way the Council charged Mr Y for his care contributions or for a care home stay or for ending the direct payment arrangement. The Council was at fault for delay in monitoring the direct payment arrangement, poor communication around the decision to end the direct payment, delay in refunding an overpayment and for the delay in dealing with Miss X's appeal about this. It has agreed to apologise and make a payment to acknowledge the uncertainty and frustration this caused and to review its procedures. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (22 007 357) Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain the Council failed to properly carry out an assessment to inform a disabled facilities grant and make a decision whether to approve this. The purpose of the grant application is to fund home alterations for their three disabled children. We found the Council failed to make a decision whether to approve the grant in a timely manner. Further, the Council is at fault for a lack of communication with Mr and Mrs B in respect of the DFG process, as well as timescales. The fault identified has caused Mr and Mrs B a degree of distress and uncertainty. The Council accepted our recommendations to remedy the injustice identified. London Borough of Haringey (22 014 904) Summary: There was no fault in the Council attempting to carry out an assessment under The Care Act 2014. Ms X is receiving direct payments toward her care support and the Council is required to regularly review this arrangement. Nor was there any fault in how it tried to communicate with her. London Borough of Hillingdon (22 017 108) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to place Mr B on the Restricted Person's Register. This is because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault with actions taken by the Council to warrant an ombudsman investigation. London Borough of Islington (23 003 980) Summary: The Council failed to consider Ms X's application for a blue badge in accordance with the blue badge guidance. Maria Mallaband 7 Limited (23 006 542) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care provider's response to a safeguarding incident involving Mrs X's mother Mrs Y. This is because the care provider has put forward a suitable remedy, which is in line with our approach. London Borough of Harrow (23 006 733) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council restructured the delivery of an adult social care provision. This is because we could not add to any previous investigation and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. London Borough of Harrow (23 006 954) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint from a care home about the Council not honouring an agreement for funding. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to take court action to enforce any contract terms. Sanctuary Home Care Limited (23 007 111) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider's alleged failure to properly care for Ms X's father Mr Y. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault with the Care Provider's actions. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (23 007 278) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Care Provider acting on behalf of a Council failing to give condolences to a family member after the resident's death. This is because we are satisfied with the actions already taken. The Care Provider has accepted fault; it has apologised and reminded staff of the correct procedures. An Ombudsman investigation would not lead to a different outcome. London Borough of Harrow (23 007 426) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a blue badge application because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. North Northamptonshire Council (23 007 617) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the invoices her father received from the Council relating to his care charges. This is because her complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint. Gladstones Clinic Limited (22 015 520) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how Mr X was discharged from a Care Provider's clinic. This is because the matters complained about are outside our jurisdiction. 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