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 East Derbyshire District Council (23 000 219) Summary: Rykneld Homes, on behalf of the Council, delayed progressing disabled adaptation works to Mrs X's kitchen. There was no fault in the decision not to approve works to Mrs X's bathroom. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X, and act to improve its services. Norfolk County Council (23 004 478) Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council assessed Mrs Y's care needs and decided not to fund a package of care for her to return home. We do not find the Council at fault. Ablecare (Philiphaugh) Ltd (23 004 949) Summary: Mrs X complains on behalf of her mother, Mrs Y, after Care Provider A refused to issue a refund, following a decision to terminate Mrs Y's stay. We have concluded our investigation having not made a finding of fault. Whilst we acknowledge Mrs X and her family had concerns with Mrs X stay, we have not seen any evidence to demonstrate non-compliance with the regulations, and the decision to withdraw Mrs Y was made without any prior agreement, nor proper consultation to understand the implications of doing so. Further, we have not found anything in Care Provider A's terms and conditions which would require it provide a refund in these circumstances. Leeds City Council (23 005 894) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about poor residential care. The Council has completed a safeguarding investigation and made recommendations to improve practice at the Care Home. It has written to the complainant and apologised for any faults identified. We could not add to the Council's investigation. Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (23 011 022) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a respite stay in a residential care home. It is unlikely we could add to the Care Provider's investigation or achieve anything further than the actions the Care Provider has taken and the payment it offered. Aspen Hill Healthcare Limited (23 011 233) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider's alleged failure to inform Ms X that her mother Ms Y had been classed as requiring end of life care. This is because the events complained about took place more than 12 months ago and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate matters that took place this long ago. South Gloucestershire Council (22 015 089) Summary: Ms B complained the Council wrongly charged adult social care fees from her late father's estate. Ms B thinks the costs should have been covered by 'discharge to assess' funding because suitable care assessments had not been carried out. We found no fault by the Council in this matter. Peterborough City Council (23 002 112) Summary: We found fault by a Council, Trust and ICB as they failed to arrange a Section 117 review meeting for Mr Y. The Council, Trust and ICB will now arrange a review meeting and apologise for the delay. They will also make a financial payment to Mr X and Mr Y in recognition of the frustration caused to them. RCH Care Homes Limited (23 002 552) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about a care provider making a false safeguarding allegation about her, with the intention to delay her relative from returning home. She also complains about delay in the care provider's handling of her complaint. This is because the care provider agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Ms X. East Sussex County Council (23 002 823) Summary: Ms X complains the Council was at fault in the way it provided care and support to her and charged her care fees causing distress. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council provided care and support to Ms X. We found fault in the way the Council charged Ms X for care as it wrongly charged her for a four- week period. The Council has agreed to take appropriate action in this case. So, we have completed our investigation. Shropshire Council (23 002 934) Summary: We did not uphold a complaint about ending Mrs Y's night care because the Council acted in line with Section 18 of the Care Act. We upheld a complaint about a delay in providing equipment. The Council has already taken action to address the fault. Essex County Council (23 005 361) Summary: The complainant (Mr X) said the Council failed when carrying out a financial assessment and the Deferred Payment Agreement (DPA) process for his late father (Mr Y). Mr X also complained about the way the Council dealt with his complaint. We found fault in all matters complained about. This fault caused injustice to Mr Y and Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise, pay to Mr Y's estate part of the residential nursing fees which would have not been incurred if not for the Council's failings and make payments for Mr X's distress and time and trouble. The Council also agreed to carry out some service improvements. Hampshire County Council (23 007 963) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care because the Court of Protection is better placed to consider the issues of this complaint. London Borough of Harrow (23 009 952) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's assessment of Mrs B's care and support needs. This is because further investigation is unlikely to find enough evidence of fault to warrant an ombudsman investigation. Plymouth City Council (23 009 997) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's handling of the safeguarding concerns she raised for a relative. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Bristol City Council (23 000 854) Summary: Mrs X, a shared lives carer complained on behalf of herself and the person she cares for, Mr Z. She said the Council failed to pay direct payments in 2022; that Mr Z's respite cover is inadequate, the Council delayed completing a care and support assessment; the Council's complaints response was delayed, and her shared lives agreement has ended. We find the Council was at fault for a delay in finalising the care assessment, delay in responding to Mrs Z's complaint and delay in completing the review. This caused Mrs X and Mr Z significant stress. The Council has agreed to several recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Durham County Council (23 002 754) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care charges and delay in invoicing. The Council has apologised for its delay, which we consider is satisfactory action to acknowledge the shock at receiving the invoice. Warrington Council (23 003 280) Summary: There is evidence of fault by the Council, in that domiciliary services provided on its behalf fell below an acceptable standard. The Council acknowledged this and offered Mrs Y an appropriate remedy before the complaint came to this office. However, the Council failed to acknowledge the injustice caused to her daughter, Mrs X. London Borough of Ealing (23 003 422) Summary: Mr B complained the Council proposed increasing his father's care contributions and it repeatedly failed to respond to his correspondence when he asked for clarification about the costs. He also says the Council has failed to resolve the issue of the additional costs for his father's incontinence pull up pads. The Council was at fault for its delays in responding to Mr B's correspondence and its complaints handling. It also delayed dealing with the issue of the incontinence pull up pads. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Lancashire County Council (23 007 297) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. Parts of the complaint are late, parts involve court action, and for the parts we could consider we are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken. The Ombudsman cannot add to the Council's investigation or achieve anything further. Lincolnshire County Council (22 012 904) Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's failure to provide care and support for her daughter for several months. We found the Council at fault for not meeting her daughter's assessed needs for this period. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused. London Borough of Hounslow (23 003 221) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the adult social care services provided to him by the Council. This is because we consider we would be unable to add to the work already taken by the Council to put matters right. Leicestershire County Council (23 004 358) Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Council. It was not a social worker's role to help Mr X find a job. Rhythmic Care UK Ltd (23 010 619) Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the care provided to Mr X's mother. There is not a good reason for the delay in bringing the matter to the Ombudsman. Somerset County Council (22 010 348) Summary: The Council is at fault for failing to properly assess, review and put in preventive measures to support a person with complex needs. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr C and make a symbolic payment to reflect the service failure, distress and uncertainty caused by the Council's faults. It will also work with Mr C to assess and plan future services for him, review procedures and remind staff about the importance of assessment and support planning. Maesbrook Care Home Ltd (22 014 368) Summary: Mrs C complains about the way in which the Care Provider gave notice to her mother, Mrs D. The Care Provider is at fault for failing to give 28 days' notice to end a contract. To remedy the complaint the Care Provider has agreed to pay Mrs D and Mrs C for the distress its failures caused; and reimburse the difference in care fees during the 28 day period it should have served. The Care Provider has also agreed to remind staff about termination clauses in its contract, the importance of completing risk assessments and full contemporaneous written records. City of York Council (22 015 072) Summary: There was fault by the Council which failed to address Mr X's complaint about the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards for his mother Mrs Y. There was also delay in giving feedback on safeguarding enquiries. This caused avoidable distress, frustration and time and trouble. The Council will apologise, make Mr X a symbolic payment and review its procedures for requests for standard authorisations. Nottinghamshire County Council (23 001 921) Summary: We found fault with the care provided to Mrs C by a GP Practice and a care home acting on behalf of the Council. This leaves her daughter, Ms B, with significant uncertainty as to whether the outcome of Mrs C's care might have been different with appropriate care. The Practice and Council will apologise to Ms B and pay her a financial sum in recognition of the impact of this fault on her. They will also explain what action they will take to prevent similar omissions occurring in future. West Sussex County Council (23 002 393) Summary: Mr X complains that the Council placed him in an unsuitable care placement and delayed in finding an alternative placement or housing. Mr X also complains the Council failed to protect his property. We consider the Council is not at fault in placing Mr X at the care placement. But the delay in finding another placement for Mr X is service failure and fault. The Council is also at fault for failing to consider its duty to protect Mr X's property. The faults have caused distress to Mr X which the Council has agreed to remedy by apologising to him and making a total payment of £1300. The Council will also draw up an action plan to find alternative accommodation for Mr X. Birmingham City Council (23 003 569) Summary: Ms X complains the Council delayed in authorising an increase in her son's personal budget and, despite accepting responsibility for that delay, has still not implemented the increase. The Council has failed to take effective action since August 2022 to ensure all the son's care needs are met. This has caused avoidable distress to Ms X and escalating stress, as more responsibility for meeting his needs has fallen on her. The Council needs to apologise, pay financial redress and take action to ensure all the son's needs are met. Norfolk County Council (23 007 511) Summary: Mr B complained a care home allowed his mother's husband to take her out unsupervised ignoring a best interest decision and putting her at risk. The Council arranged and funded Mrs C's placement at the care home. We found fault with the Council for overriding Mr B's decision as lasting power of attorney. The Council agreed to make a symbolic payment to Mr B and his mother for the injustice caused by its faults and provide staff training. Coventry City Council (23 010 064) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint that works carried out to her bathroom under the disabled facilities grant scheme were of a poor standard. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. North Lincolnshire Council (23 010 320) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's alleged failure to carry out a financial assessment for Mr X. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council's actions. Nottinghamshire County Council (23 010 345) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. The evidence shows the Council correctly completed a safeguarding enquiry and gave the complainant the outcome. Staffordshire County Council (23 010 914) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to award Miss X with a blue badge. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council's actions. 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