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. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (22 010 785) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to offer a nursing home suitable for Mrs Z's cultural needs. She said because of this Mrs Z has suffered hair, diet and skin issues caused by the Council's commissioned care provider, Newbury Manor nursing home. Ms X said this has caused her and Mrs Z significant distress. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (23 009 604) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's safeguarding investigation into concerns it received about Ms B. This is because further investigation is unlikely to provide Ms B with a different finding or provide her with the outcome she wants. Kent County Council (22 014 771) Summary: The Council's stated process for care needs and financial assessments appears to be in accordance with The Care Act 2014 but in practice 87% of cases do not follow this process. Failure to provide a personal budget as part of the care and support plan and before services are provided, is fault. The Council should review its processes to ensure cases are assessed in accordance with the Care Act requirements. Midshires Care Limited (22 016 723) Summary: Mr X complained about the standard of care and support provided to his father, Mr Y, by the care provider. He also complained about the care provider's failure to properly investigate an unattended fall incident experienced by Mr Y and its poor communication with him and Mr Y's family. There were some faults by the care provider which caused injustice to Mr Y and his family, including Mr X. The care provider will take action to remedy the injustice caused. Care Concern (Frinton) Limited (22 017 489) Summary: Miss C complained the Care Provider failed to give advice and progress Mrs X's entitlement for Funded Nursing Care. We found the Care Provider at fault for wrongly classifying Mrs X as in residential care and it failed to provide advice and progress her application for Funded Nursing Care. It also caused significant delays in its complaints process. The Care Provider has agreed pay Mrs X's estate the amount of Funded Nursing Care she was entitled to. It will also apologise and make payment to Miss C to acknowledge the distress its delayed complaints handling caused. Hampshire County Council (22 017 617) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's response to his report of safeguarding concerns. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. London Borough of Harrow (23 007 920) Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about care provided to Mr Y. There is not a good reason for the delay in the matter being brought to the Ombudsman. North Yorkshire Council (23 008 828) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council taking monies from Ms B's account. This is because the Council has agreed to reduce the debt owed by £100, repay the money back into Ms B's account, apologise for the distress caused, and agreed to send Mr C copies of all invoices and requests for payment. We are satisfied this remedies the injustice caused by the fault. Brighton & Hove City Council (22 017 779) Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not properly investigate safeguarding concerns he raised about NHS healthcare he received in 2021 and 2022. There was fault in how the Council considered Mr X's safeguarding concerns, which caused him avoidable distress. The Council agreed to apologise, properly investigate the concerns, and pay Mr X a financial remedy. It will also review relevant administrative processes and share learning points from our decision with its adult safeguarding staff. London Borough of Croydon (23 000 807) Summary: The Council failed to provide Miss X with clear transparent information about charging for home care services consequently, she believed the service was free of charge. This led to Miss X accruing a large debt. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (23 002 220) Summary: The Council is at fault for applying residential care fees for a five-day period Mr X was in hospital and awaiting a reassessment of his care needs. West Sussex County Council (23 008 261) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision that her father does not need to be placed in an extra care property. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. London Borough of Hounslow (23 008 367) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council charging his mother for care. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (23 008 670) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council charging her mother Mrs Y for an interim care home placement. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant us investigating. Our investigation would not add to the Council's investigation. Durham County Council (23 009 141) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding. We cannot add to the Council's investigation, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, and we cannot achieve ending the employment of the alleged abuser which is what the complainant wants. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (23 009 681) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about lack of care and support provided to Ms B in her role as carer for her daughter Ms D. This is because further investigation could not add to the Council's independent investigation into her concerns or provide her with the outcome she wants. Hampshire County Council (22 015 099) Summary: Mr F complained about long delays in arranging to discharge his daughter Miss D from hospital to a community placement, after she was detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. We did not find fault in most of the Council and Integrated Care Board's work to arrange Miss D's discharge. We found fault by the Council in not sharing information about possible fire risk with a potential landlord. This fault is likely to have caused avoidable delay to Miss D's discharge plans, which has caused her and her father frustration and distress. The Council has agreed to provide Miss D and Mr F with a financial remedy, and to take action to prevent similar problems happening in future. Bath and North East Somerset Council (23 000 127) Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not advise him about care charges towards his mother's care costs paid via a direct payment. We find there was fault by the Council as it gave the wrong information about amounts it would pay as a direct payment. However, we do not consider this caused Mrs X or Mr X injustice. North Yorkshire Council (23 001 259) Summary: Mr B complained the Council did not deal with a surplus on a direct payment account in the proper way and, as a result, his son paid more for his care than he should. There was fault by the Council but it did not cause significant injustice. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (23 001 697) Summary: Mr X complains the Avenue Nursing Home failed to look after his father properly, resulting in him injuring his head. He also complains the Council failed to deal properly with the safeguarding concerns about his father's injury. While the Nursing Home was not responsible for his father's injury, it did not handle the incident properly and its records are not entirely accurate. This resulted in a loss of trust and has made it difficult to find out what happened. The care provider needs to apologise and improve its record keeping. There was no fault by the Council over its handling of the safeguarding concerns. London Borough of Merton (23 002 101) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly assess her daughter, Miss Y's care and support needs, or Mrs X's needs as her carer and has not provided the necessary support or agreed respite. The Council's failure to provide the agreed respite over a significant period is fault. This fault has caused Mrs X and Miss Y an injustice. The Avenue Care Home (Bradford) Limited (23 004 141) Summary: Mr X complains the Avenue Nursing Home failed to look after his father properly, resulting in him injuring his head. He also complains the Council failed to deal properly with the safeguarding concerns about his father's injury. While the Nursing Home was not responsible for his father's injury, it did not handle the incident properly and its records are not entirely accurate. This resulted in a loss of trust and has made it difficult to find out what happened. The care provider needs to apologise and improve its record keeping. There was no fault by the Council over its handling of the safeguarding concerns. Surrey County Council (23 005 982) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a care plan because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Lancashire County Council (23 007 013) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council has charged Mr X's mother for her care and support. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Oxfordshire County Council (23 007 097) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charges for adult care services. This is because it is a late complaint. Darlington Borough Council (23 008 188) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about poor care provided to Mr X's mother by her care home. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Essex County Council (23 008 573) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a phone conversation he had with the Council about settling his mother's unpaid care bill following her death. This is because an investigation by this office would not be able to add to the response already provided via the Council's own investigation. Plymouth City Council (23 008 997) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a care provider relating to safeguarding concerns for Mrs Y at this time. A coroner's inquest is due to be held, and we could not come to sound conclusions until that process has concluded. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (23 009 148) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council delaying organising respite care for his mother, Mrs X, and not dealing properly with his contacts about the matter. There is insufficient personal injustice to him or Mrs X to warrant us investigating and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Redcar & Cleveland Council (23 008 876) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X complaint about restricted access for mobility scooters in and around the community and about delay in the Council processing his request for equipment. This is because there is no ongoing significant injustice and an investigation would not lead to any worthwhile outcomes. Liverpool City Council (23 008 915) Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council's decision-making process when it moved Mr X's mother into a care home. There is not a good reason for the delay in bringing the matter to the Ombudsman. Bassetlaw District Council (22 014 078) Summary: Mrs X, on behalf of her husband, complained the Council failed to ensure a Disabled Facilities Grant delivered the agreed changes to the property and it has not reimbursed all their out of pocket expenses incurred due to problems with the build. Mrs X says they have both experienced stress and ill health. While there were issues with the build meaning some changes, the finished build meets Mr X's care and disability needs. There is no fault in respect of payments made for out of pocket meal expenses but the Council should consider a claim for any damage caused by the builder it contracted. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (23 000 332) Summary: The Council is at fault for failing to properly consider Mrs D's complaint about support services for her son. The Council has agreed to progress the complaint, make service improvements, and make a symbolic payment of £250 to Mrs D for her time, trouble, and frustration. Summerfield Medical Limited (23 000 647) Summary: Miss X complained the Care Provider delayed pursuing her for care home fees which allowed a large debt to accrue. In addition, it did not advise her of a fee increase in April 2022 and failed to take Council funding into account in calculating the amount owed. The care provider was not at fault. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (23 002 938) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's response to her request to increase her support after her health deteriorated. We only found fault with time taken to carry out the assessment. The Council has agreed to apologise for the distress caused. There was no fault with the assessment itself. The Council carried out a review and decided Mrs X's needs could still be met within the existing personal budget. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make having carried out a face-to- face review of her circumstances. Gloucestershire County Council (23 003 623) Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed carrying out a financial assessment for her father Mr Y's care home placement and did not discuss affordability and top ups with her. There was no fault in the way the Council carried out the financial assessment. There was a delay in it agreeing funding with the care provider. The care provider has already revised the bill to reflect this so there is no outstanding injustice. The Council delayed ending the placement so Mr Y was charged his contribution for longer than he should have been. The Council has agreed to ensure Mr Y is not charged his client contribution from mid August 2022 to the date the placement ended. Portsmouth City Council (23 003 798) Summary: Mr X complained the Council placed his mother in a nursing home without giving her, or her family, opportunity to object. Mr X complained the Council is now asking for payment of care home fees for this placement. Mr X also complained the Council sent his mother for rehabilitation and respite care when it knew she would not be able to walk or live independently again. We found fault with the Council delaying in referring Mr X's mother to a physiotherapist. We do not consider this fault caused a significant personal injustice to either Mr X or his mother. London Borough of Hackney (23 005 986) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing Miss X's blue badge application. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Kent County Council (23 008 788) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care costs in a residential care home. The Council's only role is to provide advice and support because the complainant has the funds to pay for their own care and has a power of attorney who can arrange the care. The Ombudsman has no powers to intervene in those privately arranging care paying more than those whose care is arranged by a local authority. Lincolnshire County Council (22 015 653) Summary: There is evidence of fault in the way a Care Provider, acting on behalf of the Council, communicated with Ms X at the end of, and immediately after, her mother's death. The Care Provider's response to Ms X's complaint lacked transparency and sensitivity. London Borough of Redbridge (22 018 033) Summary: Mr D complains on behalf of his son, Mr F, that the Council-commissioned care home wrongly gave Mr F notice to leave in response to their complaints. We found no fault. Essex County Council (23 001 498) Summary: The Council failed to ensure Miss Y received accurate invoices for domiciliary care services from a care agency commissioned by the Council. The Council delayed in acting on numerous complaints about this. West Sussex County Council (23 005 897) Summary: The Council assessed Mrs Y's social care needs in line with Sections 9 and 18 of the Care Act 2014. It also assessed her mental capacity to make decisions about her care and living arrangements in line with Section 3 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The records indicate Mrs X and Mrs Y's views and opinions were taken into account. As the Council acted in line with the law, there is no fault in the decision not to fund residential care. East Sussex County Council (23 007 885) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about errors in Council invoicing. This is because the Council has already amended its practice to try to prevent recurrence of the fault. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome. Country Court Care Homes 2 Ltd (23 008 665) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about his late mother Mrs X's care provider losing her jewellery and not advising her family about an earlier theft at the care home. Investigation would not achieve a different or worthwhile outcome. The complaint is a claim of legal liability for the loss of the property which it would be reasonable for Mr X to pursue as an insurance claim or, if declined, to the courts. 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