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. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (22 006 527) Summary: Mr R complains for his brother-in-law (Mr L) who has care and support needs. He says the Council failed to complete a mental capacity and care assessment for Mr L in a timely way. Mr R explains this meant Mr L's eligible care needs were not identified and met by the Council when they should have been. At this stage, we found the Council was at fault for a serious delay in carrying out these assessments. This resulted in Mr L not receiving payments to fund necessary professional care. The fault identified caused an injustice and we have made recommendations for the Council to remedy this. Birmingham City Council (23 006 634) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council delaying arranging adaptations for Mr Z, who died before adaptations were made. The Council has agreed to pay a symbolic remedy to Mr Z's son and granddaughter to recognise the impact on them of events. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (23 007 167) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint that the Council delayed in arranging a day care placement for her son Mr Z and would not provide her with direct payments to fund the placement. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Willowbrook Healthcare Limited (23 008 117) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the level of care provided to her father by his care home. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes. In addition, we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants and there is another body better placed to consider her complaint. Achieve Together Limited (23 009 076) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about noise and disturbance from a Care Home. This is because the actions complained about do not relate to the provision of adult social care. North Yorkshire County Council (22 002 863) Summary: The complaint concerned the care fees due for Ms B's late aunt. She says that because the issue with the fees was not resolved it was not possible to apply for probate and wind up the estate. She said this caused her, and her parents, who has also acted in pursuing the matter with the Council, distress and time and trouble. There was fault which caused injustice. The Council should apologise and make a payment. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (22 015 196) Summary: There was fault in the Council's failure to provide the support as set out in Mr and Mrs B's care plan. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr and Mrs B and pay them a financial remedy. Leeds City Council (22 018 220) Summary: On behalf of Care Provider Z, Mrs X complains the Council backdated a financial assessment for one of its service users for 14 months, leading to a significant shortfall in care fees. Mrs X wants the Council to accept liability for these costs and make up the difference. We have discontinued our investigation. This is because we cannot achieve a worthwhile outcome from further investigation, as we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X is seeking. Bedford Borough Council (23 000 334) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. A Care Provider acting on behalf of the Council was considering expanding its service so was considering a suitable property for Ms B to live. But there was no formal offer to Ms B so there was no fault in the Care Provider deciding not to purchase a property, despite the possibility raising Ms B's hopes. The Council accepts it did not communicate the issues well to Ms B and has apologised for her distress. This is satisfactory action, and we could achieve nothing further. Leicester City Council (23 001 484) Summary: Mrs X complained there have been significant delays in providing her son, Mr Y with a working step lift to enable him to access and exit his home independently. The Council's delays and failure to ensure Mr Y had a working lift that met his needs so that he could enter and exist his home independently are fault. This fault has caused Mr Y and Mrs X an injustice. Lancashire County Council (23 001 674) Summary: Ms X complained the Council is pursuing a debt for adult social care fees which she disputes. Ms X said she made payments, but the Council has not credited the payments to her account. Ms X said this has affected her mental health. The Council was not at fault. Worcestershire County Council (23 001 973) Summary: Mr B complained about the Council's delay in completing his father's a financial assessment and an assessment of his father's needs for care and support. We have found fault and the Council has agreed to apologise, pay £150 and remind finance officer to fully consider the evidence. Tuella Limited (23 005 646) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Care Provider's alleged failure to meet Mrs Y's needs. This is because it concerns events that took place over 12 months ago and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate them now. Further, we cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Care Provider's decision to pursue Mrs Y for outstanding care charges. This is because it relates to matters that took place in court and is therefore outside of our jurisdiction. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (23 006 474) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about social workers discriminating against him because of his gender. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different outcomes or findings. In addition, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants. Bupa Care Homes (GL) Limited (23 007 796) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about poor care provided to her mother while she was in a care home. This is because an investigation would not lead to different findings or outcomes. In addition, we could not achieve the outcome Ms X wants. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (22 017 318) Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider his application for additional disability related expenditure in deciding his contribution to his care costs. He also complained the Council did not make reasonable adjustments for him during the assessment process. The Council was not at fault for refusing Mr X's application. However, it was at fault for not clearly explaining its reasons. The Council has already apologised for this and provided its reasons in its complaint response to Mr X which was an appropriate remedy. It will now remind staff of the need to provide adequate explanations in decision letters. Essex County Council (23 001 246) Summary: Mrs X complains there were failings in the way the Council provided care and support to her daughter Ms X and responded to her concerns about the matter. The Council has accepted it was at fault as it delayed carrying out a social care review of Ms X following Mr and Mrs X's requests. It also delayed responding to Mrs X's correspondence. The Council has apologised and paid Mr and Mrs X £350 in recognition of the uncertainty caused which is suitable action for it to take. The Council is now discussing a social care needs review with Mr and Mrs X and Ms X which is the outcome they were seeking. So, we have completed our investigation. Somerset Council (23 006 932) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the actions of a day centre owner and about the Council's response to her concerns about him. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council and there is nothing further we could add to the response the Council has already provided via its own investigation. London Borough of Hounslow (23 007 244) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to tell Mr X he would be charged for the care and support services he received. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Brighton & Hove City Council (23 008 100) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the actions of the Council's social worker following her raising concerns about a tenant. She feels the Council should have moved the tenant to more suitable accommodation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Warwickshire County Council (23 008 270) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's alleged failure to carry out a needs assessment for Mr X's mother Ms Y. This is because the complaint concerns events that took place over 12 months ago and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate them now. Infinite Healthcare Services Ltd (22 002 504) Summary: We ended our investigation into Miss X's complaint about how the Care Provider pursued her for outstanding care charges and the care and support it provided to her. This is because it was unlikely a further investigation would achieve a different outcome and it was unlikely we could add to the Care Provider's previous investigation. New Care Nottingham (Opco) Limited (22 011 172) Summary: Ms C complains there was service failure by the Care Provider. The Care Provider failed to complete, carry out, and review care plans properly. It also failed to provide and offer consistent well-being activities to Mr D. This has caused uncertainty that but for the faults identified Mr D did not always have the services he paid for. To remedy the complaint the Care Provider has agreed to apologise to Mr D, make Mr D a payment, review processes and provide staff training. South Gloucestershire Council (22 015 089) Summary: I propose not to investigate this complaint because it is a late complaint. Ms B now has an opportunity to comment before I reach any final decision. West Northamptonshire Council (22 015 207) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not properly investigate complaints and safeguarding concerns about home care it commissioned for her mother, Mrs Y, from Cera Care Operations Ltd in Old Stratford in 2021 and 2022. There was fault in how the Council considered Mrs X's complaints and safeguarding concerns, which caused avoidable distress for Mrs Y and her family. It also may have caused Mrs Y a financial loss. The Council agreed to apologise and pay Mrs Y and her family a financial remedy. It will also review some of its adult safeguarding documentation, issue reminders to relevant staff, and share its learning points from our decision with its adult safeguarding staff. Medway Council (22 016 505) Summary: We have investigated the impact of a transport charging policy on residents of care homes operated by a Care Provider (Voyage Care), where the Council paid for their care. We find fault in some actions taken by the Council since we first highlighted concerns about the impact of this policy in January 2022. The Council accepts this finding. It recognises the policy has caused injustice to residents wrongly charged for transport the Care Provider should have provided as part of their care. The Council has agreed action to remedy injustice caused to those residents (up to 14 in total). London Borough of Hounslow (22 017 017) Summary: Ms B says the Council failed to consider her daughter's case properly when it refused her application for a blue badge. There is no evidence fault affected the decision in Ms B's daughter's case. Kent County Council (22 017 438) Summary: Mrs Y complained about the Council's assessment and review of Mr X's care and support needs. We have found fault by the Council in failing to review, or properly review, Mr X's support needs from 2018 to 2020. But we do not consider this caused Mr X any injustice. North Yorkshire County Council (22 017 529) Summary: The Council repeatedly missed opportunities to assess Mrs Z's mental capacity regarding her ability to manage her finances when this was in doubt. As a result, its decision to charge her for the full cost of her care fees for several years before she died, based on incomplete information regarding her finances, was fault. This fault caused significant uncertainty and distress to her relative, Mr X, who is the executor of her will. The Council's communication and complaint handling with Mr X has also been poor. In recognition of the uncertainty caused by the Council's inadequate assessments of Mrs Z's finances, the Council has agreed to write off the £21,987.06 debt it says she owes. The Council will also apologise to Mr X, pays him £350 to recognise his own frustration and time and trouble and carry out several service improvements to prevent this fault occurring in future. Reading Borough Council (23 002 702) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's financial assessment and his assessed contribution towards his social care package. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (23 005 841) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about respite care provided in 2021 and 2022. Part of it is not valid for us to consider and we could not achieve a different outcome for the other part. Southend-on-Sea City Council (23 007 153) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care package arranged by the Council for Mrs X's aunt. Mrs X says the council arranged for her aunt to receive double handed care which was not necessary. She feels her aunt should not have to pay for care that was unnecessary. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (23 007 578) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Telford & Wrekin Council (23 007 735) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in the Council implementing an extra hour of care and support for Mr X's mother-in-law. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes. West Sussex County Council (23 006 744) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Care Act assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. In addition, the Council has offered to meet and review whether the complainants care needs are being met. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (23 007 605) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs Y's contact with her mother and poor communication between the Council and Care Provider. The substantive issue is currently being investigated by the police, whose actions we cannot investigate. In any event, Mrs Y's injustice has not been caused by any fault. Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (22 012 804) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about night time care provided to Ms Y at her care home. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would add to the response Ms X has already received. Surrey County Council (22 016 548) Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's decision to allow her son's own care provider to provide daytime support as part of his supporting living arrangement but not his overnight care. We have found no fault in the way the Council reached its decision. 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