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. Birmingham City Council (22 012 128) Summary: We uphold Mrs X's complaint that her son, Mr Y, was left alone or with one member of staff at his supported living accommodation, even though his Section 117 care plan said he should have two carers at all times. We also uphold her complaint that there were occasions when Mr Y's medication was not given correctly. In responding to Mrs X's complaint, the Council accepted Mr Y's care needs were only partially met. While the Council has apologised and taken steps to prevent recurrence, we have also recommended the Council and ICB provide a financial remedy and make improvements to Section 117 care planning. London Borough of Croydon (23 000 827) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's financial assessment of her mother, Mrs Y, for her care in a care home. There was no fault in the Council's calculation of how much Mrs Y should pay towards her care. There was fault in the Council's invoices, complaint handling, and record keeping. The Council agreed to pay Miss X £400 to acknowledge the frustration and distress this caused. Bristol City Council (23 002 687) Summary: There was fault in record keeping but this did not cause injustice to the person who complained. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (23 004 995) Summary: There was fault by the Council. The Council did not take account of all the available information when deciding there had been deprivation of assets. Reconsidering the decision remedies the injustice to the family. Warwickshire County Council (23 006 710) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint, made on behalf of Mrs Y, about the Council's pursuit of care fee charges from several years ago. The Council has taken the matter to court and received orders allowing it to place a charge on Mrs Y's property to recover the debt. We cannot investigate the complaint because the law prohibits us from investigating complaints about the start of court action and what happened in court. North East Lincolnshire Council (23 009 376) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about exclusion from a person's adult social care support. This is because the person can make their own decisions and has told the Council not to share information with their family. It is unlikely we would find evidence of fault by the Council or achieve anything by an investigation. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (23 009 463) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council trying to discharge his grandmother into a nursing home without completing a proper care and support needs assessment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Medway Council (23 010 386) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to invoice Miss X's daughter Ms Y for care charges for several months. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to result in a worthwhile outcome. Luton Borough Council (23 010 964) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's safeguarding investigation into the care the late Mr B received from his Care Provider. This is because further investigation could not add to the Council's responses or provide Mrs C with a different outcome. We could not now provide a remedy for any injustice caused to Mr B because he is deceased. Wiltshire Council (23 012 649) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X complaint about delay in the Council installing equipment in her home. This is because the Council is not responsible for the issue being raised. Cornwall Council (23 002 556) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council wrongly treated loan monies held in Mrs Y's savings account as capital when calculating Mrs Y's contribution towards the cost of her care. The Council required Mrs Y to self-fund her care until she repaid the loan. The Council was not at fault in including the loan as capital in Mrs Y's financial assessment. However, the Council's delay in agreeing a personal budget, reimbursing Mrs Y the cost of the care she had already paid and paying for her ongoing care, less her contribution, from 23 March 2023 was fault. This fault caused Mrs X and Mrs Y an injustice. Derbyshire County Council (23 004 377) Summary: We have ended our investigation into Mr X's housing as we cannot achieve the outcome he wants and the housing authority in this case has not yet had the opportunity to respond. London Borough of Lewisham (23 007 534) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to pay a care provider for its services. The courts are best placed to consider the matter. Blackpool Borough Council (23 008 220) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about a care provider not reporting the incident that led to her husband's serious injuries in a truthful and correct manner. She also says the care provider did not implement the correct procedure during the moving and handling of her husband. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (23 008 389) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a care home not receiving some funding. The complaint is late without good enough reason to investigate it now. Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (23 009 334) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a letter sent by Mrs D's Care Provider. This is because the Care Provider's actions have not caused a significant enough injustice to warrant an ombudsman investigation. London Borough of Newham (23 009 615) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care provision and visiting arrangements. The Care Provider has responded to the complaint and added privacy screening, it is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further. The Ombudsman cannot investigate visiting arrangements because these are set by a court, and the complainant would need to take the matter back to court. East Sussex County Council (23 010 506) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to apologise for poor communication resulting in lack of trust. This is because further investigation could not add to the Council's response or make a different finding of the kind Ms B wants. London Borough of Lewisham (22 017 605) Summary: The Council acted properly and in accordance with law in addressing Mrs X's social care needs. It also properly addressed Mrs X's concerns about the quality of the care provided. However, the delay in formally informing Mrs X of the outcome of a safeguarding investigation and the lack of a formal apology for identified failings was poor practice. And for this, the Council should apologise. Nightingale Care Home Limited (22 018 010) Summary: Ms X, complains on behalf of her mother Mrs Z. She said Nightingale Care Home Limited 'the care provider' has barred Mrs Z from visiting her sister at the care home. We find the care provider was at fault for not including a review in its policy. This caused significant distress to Mrs Z. To address this injustice, we recommend the care provider updates it policy. We also recommend it reviews its current decision annually. North Northamptonshire Council (23 001 607) Summary: Mrs F complained the Council failed to tell her that she would have to contribute to the cost of her husband's attendance at a day centre. There was fault which caused distress to Mrs F. The Council has already apologised. It has also now clarified the letters it issues about financial contributions. East Sussex County Council (23 006 935) Summary: Mrs C complained about the standard of care provided to her late mother which caused her uncertainty about whether care workers were meeting her mother's needs. We have found fault as there were instances of care workers not logging calls correctly and not staying for the allocated time. We consider the agreed action of an apology, symbolic payment and a reminder about call times and recording provides a suitable remedy. W C S Care Group Ltd (23 007 001) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of respite care. That is because we can not add to the Care Provider's investigation. Hertfordshire County Council (23 009 588) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council failing to complete an appropriate deprivation of liberty safeguards assessment for her daughter. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Trafford Council (23 010 783) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's alleged failure to include Mrs X in care assessments for her mother Ms Y. This is because the complaint concerns events that took place more than 12 months ago and it would have been reasonable for Mrs X to bring the complaint to us at the time. London Borough of Waltham Forest (23 010 934) Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about adaptations the Council made to Mrs X's family's home. There is not a good reason for the delay in Mrs X bringing the matter to the Ombudsman. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 010 970) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision not to exclude the funds held in a joint bank account when it completed his wife's financial assessment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (23 001 803) Summary: The Council acknowledges it delayed for some time in issuing an invoice to Mr X for Mrs X's care due to an error in its system; however, there is ample evidence the Council had explained charges would be made. The Council has offered a payment plan and will also offer the sum of £500 in recognition of the distress caused by its errors. South Gloucestershire Council (23 004 820) Summary: We have ended our investigation into this complaint. This is because the complainant has no suitable person to represent her and the Office for the Public Guardian is better placed to consider the actions of her deputy. Northumberland County Council (23 008 088) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the care and support provided to her relative Ms Y, prior to her death. This is because the Council has already referred the case for a multi- agency safeguarding adult review and we could not achieve more than this. Gibsons Lodge Ltd (23 009 365) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about poor communication and discrepancies in charging for Mr C's care fees. This is because there is no significant injustice from the Care Provider's actions warranting an ombudsman investigation. Norfolk County Council (23 010 233) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about funding adult social care. We are unlikely to find fault by the Council because it is not obliged to provide or fund care for a time before a person has approached it. Mr Michael John Hitchens (23 010 367) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about private residential care. It is unlikely we will find the Care Provider's actions caused significant injustice because the lift breaking down was outside its control. The Care Provider took suitable action in response and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Midshires Care Limited (23 010 956) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about lack of care provided to the late Mrs B. This is because we could not add to the Care Provider's response or make a different finding of the kind Mrs D wants. We could not provide Mrs B with a remedy for any injustice caused to her by the Care Provider's actions even if we investigated as she is now deceased. 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