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. Wemyss Lodge Limited (23 007 668) Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Care Provider's calculation of fees. The fee uplift in question was applied in 2019, and there is not a good reason for the complaint not being brought to us sooner. In any event, the matter is best dealt with by the courts. Cornwall Council (23 011 037) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about how the Council handled his friend's, Ms Y's, move to a care home. This is because the Council has not yet considered Ms Y's complaint and if Ms Y is dissatisfied with the Council's actions, it is reasonable for Ms Y to ask the Council to do so. Hampshire County Council (23 012 572) Summary: We will not investigate Mr C's complaint about the way his previous care provider made him feel. This is because further investigation by us could not add to the Care Provider's response or make a different finding of the kind Mr C wants. It would be reasonable for him to ask the court to consider his claim for damages and loss. London Borough of Harrow (23 002 634) Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's handling of the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) for her child, Child Y. There was fault in the Council's current assessment that Child Y no longer requires the adaptation previously approved in 2021. There has also been considerable delay in the Council's progression of Child Y's DFG case, which has caused significant injustice to Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X and complete a new assessment. Brighton & Hove City Council (23 003 266) Summary: Mr C complained about how the Council dealt with his safeguarding concerns regarding the actions of a care provider's carer. We found no fault in the safeguarding process the Council followed to reach its view. However, it apologised for not sharing the outcome of its investigation in a timely manner. Its apology was enough to remedy the uncertainty this caused Mr C. Leicester City Council (23 007 177) Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed allocating a social worker to him. He also complained about the Council's communication with him and that the Council delayed carrying out a review of his care and support plan. Mr X says the Council's actions caused him avoidable distress. We found fault by the Council and the Council has agreed to provide an apology and a financial remedy to Mr X. Norfolk County Council (23 010 170) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr C signing a document agreeing to pay for care which his son, Mr B says he did not understand. This is because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault with the actions of the Council to warrant an ombudsman investigation. Somerset Council (23 012 919) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Adult Social Care because court action has started about the same matter. Manchester City Council (23 013 410) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of Ms X's care support. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. Sheffield City Council (23 002 690) Summary: Ms C complained the Council did not consider properly her son's disability related expenses when deciding the amount he must contribute towards the cost of his care. Ms C said this means her son is not getting the support he needs and his mental health has deteriorated. We have found fault in some of the Council's communication and avoidable delay but consider the agreed action of an apology and symbolic payment provides a suitable remedy. Care UK Community Partnerships Limited (23 007 340) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Adult Social Care because we are satisfied with the actions the Care Provider has taken and we could not add to any previous investigation by the Care Provider Birmingham City Council (23 007 533) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council told her that her mother, Mrs L would not have to pay towards her care costs when she went into a care home, but it then charged her for the care. Mrs X said Mrs L could not afford to pay the fees from her pension. There was fault in the Council's actions as it did not record if it explained Mrs L's contribution to her care costs and delayed in completing a financial assessment. The Council agreed to apologise for the uncertainty and frustration this caused Mrs X. Devon County Council (23 000 389) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council, when acting as a deputy for her mother, should have noted payments to an insurance policy. We found fault by the Council which caused personal injustice. The Council has agreed remedies for the injustice and service improvements. North Lincolnshire Council (23 004 685) Summary: Miss Y complains the Council gave her incorrect information about elements of her social care, such as the rate of Disability Related Expenditure (DRE) and the hourly rate for her Personal Assistant. She also complains the Council invited her to a review meeting without adequate notice or advocacy support. The Council has already apologised for incorrect information given in one email about Miss Y's DRE. There is no fault in the other parts of Miss Y's complaint. Buckinghamshire Council (23 007 072) Summary: Ms X complained staff at the care home where Mr Y was a resident neglected him and were racist. There is no evidence of fault or a racist approach in the care and support the care home provided to Mr Y. Lancashire County Council (23 007 354) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council told her it would cover the cost of her husband's time at a nursing home but has now charged for it. Mrs X also complained about delays in assigning a social worker and about the cost of home care following her husband's discharge from hospital. We found fault with the Council for failing to advise Mrs X of her husband's nursing home costs until September 2023. We also found fault with the Council overcharging for home care costs. The Council agreed to apply a 50% reduction to the nursing home costs and apply a credit of £8.50 to the home care account to reflect the overcharge. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (23 010 992) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mr X regarding matters relating to his mother's Care Provider. This is because the issues raised have not caused Mr X a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation. G P Homecare Ltd (23 013 017) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care staff accessing Mr B's property and how the Care Provider dealt with the matter. This is because the complaint is not about actions that involve, or are connected to, the provision of adult social care. So, we have no power to investigate the complaint. Devon County Council (23 013 155) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's decision not to issue her with a Blue Badge. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Surrey County Council (23 013 324) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's handling of her accommodation move. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. Salford City Council (23 013 356) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's assessment of Mr and Mrs X's care needs. This is because the Council has already apologised for the upheld parts of complaint, which is an appropriate remedy. Further investigation of the other parts of complaint would not lead to a different outcome. London Borough of Croydon (23 008 339) Summary: Mrs D complained about the decision by Croydon Council and NHS South West London Integrated Care Board to discharge her brother, Mr E, from S117 aftercare. We will not look at this complaint because a judge has already considered the issue. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 012 525) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a care provider commissioned by the Council not being safe. He also complains about the care provider giving notice to end his care package. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome as we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (23 013 225) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a social worker because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Devon County Council (23 013 586) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's decision to refuse her blue badge application and how it made that decision. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable from our investigation which is not available to her through a new blue badge application to the Council. We also cannot achieve the outcomes she wants from her complaint. 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