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. Carlcare Ltd (23 012 999) Summary: Ms B complains the Care Provider damaged and mislaid her mother's belongings. We found items were moved without consulting the family, which was fault. This caused uncertainty, which is an injustice. The Care Provider should reduce its invoice by £300 to remedy this. Manchester City Council (23 018 302) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions for work carried out under a disabled facilities grant. Further investigation will not lead to a different outcome. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (23 018 651) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the cost of adult social care respite breaks. The Council told the complainant there was a cost for respite, and that the person using the service was responsible to pay the full costs of their care. There was a failure to send an updated care plan, and a small delay in invoicing for the respite, but these errors do not cause a significant injustice to warrant further investigation. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (23 019 021) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care because there is another body better placed to deal with the complaint and we could not achieve the outcome Mr Y is seeking. Shropshire Council (23 019 311) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's handling of his financial assessment. Mr X complains the Council refused some of his requested disability related expenditure, refused to appoint him an independent advocate to help him with the financial assessment process, and about the minimum income guarantee amount used. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Blackpool Borough Council (23 019 671) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs C's complaint about the Council's decision to treat her mother, Mrs B, as depriving herself of capital for the purpose of avoiding care costs. This is because we could not add to the Council's response or make a different finding even if we investigated. Bath and North East Somerset Council (23 019 700) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's review of Mrs X's eligible care needs. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council's actions. Herefordshire Council (24 000 294) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care charges. That is because it is a late complaint. Peterborough City Council (23 009 618) Summary: Mr X complained the Council excluded him from the care process for his brother, Mr Y, and that it failed to act on concerns he raised about his brother's care and unnecessarily appointed an advocate for Mr Y. There was no fault in the way the Council responded to Mr X's concerns or in the decision to appoint an independent advocate. The Council was at fault for not properly consulting Mr Y about who to involve in his review and for not completing the review in a person-centred way. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X for the frustration he was caused, pay Mr Y £200 to acknowledge the uncertainty caused by not properly involving him in the review and provide evidence it has issued reminders to staff to prevent a recurrence of the fault. Darlington Borough Council (23 016 984) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about domiciliary care. The Council has fully upheld the complaints and agreed to make service improvements. Further investigation by the Ombudsman will not lead to a different outcome. Essex County Council (23 017 619) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council reducing her care and support hours following a care reassessment. She was receiving 12 hours of care per week and has now been assessed as not being eligible for any care. This is because the alleged fault has not caused any significant injustice. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (23 017 797) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the Council's refusal to allow his late wife, Mrs B, to return to their home. This is because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an ombudsman investigation. Norfolk County Council (23 017 877) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care respite provision, because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating further. The Council communicated it was sourcing a respite placement and that it could not fund the complainants preferred location, placement X. There was no delay by the Council in sourcing respite. The complainant made an informed decision to make a private arrangement with placement X. Gloucestershire County Council (23 018 460) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to liaise with Ms B's care provider about her supported living arrangements. This is because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault with the Council's actions to warrant an ombudsman investigation. Norfolk County Council (23 018 755) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about adult social care charges and the Council's response to his Freedom of Information request. We could not add to the Council's investigation and the Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider a complaint about the Council's handling of his information request. Middlesbrough Borough Council (23 019 233) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about inaccurate personal data held by the Council. This is because there is another body better placed to investigate this complaint. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) is the UK's independent body set up to uphold information rights and can help with the 'right to rectification' of inaccurate or incomplete data. London Borough of Hounslow (23 019 540) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to issue a Blue Badge. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Birmingham City Council (22 013 813) Summary: Mrs Y complained the Council's actions unreasonably led to her family paying a top-up fee for residential care for their mother. We found there was fault by the Council. We recommended an apology and re-imbursement of some of the top-up fees the family had to pay. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (23 005 126) Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of Mrs Y, that the Council did not inform her of her care charges and did not properly reach its decision about an intentional deprivation of assets. We found fault which caused injustice to Mrs X and Mrs Y. The Council should apologise and reconsider its decision. Manchester City Council (23 009 832) Summary: Ms X complains that, despite her complaints, the Council's care provider, Gorton Parks Care Home, continues to fail to meet her mother's care needs. This includes not supporting her to eat properly, leaving her unwashed and in unclean clothes, and leaving her to use the rubbish bin in her room as a toilet. The Council accepts Gorton Parks needs to improve its record keeping. It has also offered to arrange a meeting with Ms X and Gorton Parks to enable her to raise concerns when they arise so Gorton Parks can address them. The Council also needs to work with Gorton Parks to make sure it improves the support it provides for Ms X's mother. London Borough of Bromley (23 015 108) Summary: Ms X complains about the Council's handling of her father's financial assessment. The Council accepts it did not deal with it properly and has apologised for the inconvenience it has caused. It has also reminded officers of the need to communicate with people effectively. The Council also needs to make symbolic payments to Ms X and her parents. It also needs to take further action to improve its working practices. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (23 015 229) Summary: Ms X complains about the Council's handling of her application for a blue badge. There was no fault by the Council in the way it made its decision. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (23 018 607) Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about Mrs C being locked in her bedroom in 2019. This is because we could not add to the response Mr E received from Mrs C's care provider in 2020 or achieve a different outcome. Cheshire West & Chester Council (23 018 933) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to charge Mr Y the full cost of his care, taking notional capital into account. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision, so we cannot question the outcome. Plymouth City Council (23 018 952) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has not completed adequate social care assessments for four of Mrs B's clients. This is because we do not consider Mrs B to be a suitable representative, and the injustice Mrs B claims personally does not arise from the actions she complains of but from a commissioning decision she could reasonably pursue under the contract between her organisation and the Council. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (23 019 063) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a social worker being inadequately trained. We cannot achieve the outcome the complainant seeks, and Social Work England is best placed to consider the matter. Redcar & Cleveland Council (23 019 127) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's alleged failure to discuss Mr X's care arrangements with his relative Mrs Y. This is because the complaint concerns events that took place more than 12 months ago; it would have been reasonable to bring the complaint to us sooner. Regent Home Care (West Herts) Limited (23 007 717) Summary: Miss Y complains about the home care provided to her mother, Ms W. The care provider upheld some parts of her complaint, apologised and made service improvements. We have identified some fault in one of the complaints which the care provider has agreed to apologise for and provide a symbolic payment. There is no significant injustice arising from the other fault which requires a remedy. Leicestershire County Council (23 016 924) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to fund Mrs D's care needs in the community rather than in residential care. This is because the Council has determined Mrs D's care needs can be met in the community and so there is insufficient evidence of the decision causing a significant enough injustice to warrant our involvement. Essex County Council (23 018 550) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Care UK Community Partnerships Limited (23 018 653) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care in a residential care home. This is because it is unlikely we could add to investigations already undertaken by the coroner and the local authority safeguarding team. London Borough of Haringey (23 018 948) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about access to information. The Information Commissioner is best placed to consider complaints about how organisations respond to information requests. Essex County Council (23 019 097) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled an adult safeguarding matter. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council. We cannot by law investigate separate issues about the complainant's concerns of criminal actions which have been referred to and investigated by the police. This is because we have no legal jurisdiction to investigate these complaints. East Midlands Care Agency Services Ltd (23 019 299) Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about a false allegation made by a carer. There is not a good reason for the delay in bringing the matter to the Ombudsman. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (23 019 551) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Leicester City Council (23 009 678) Summary: We find no fault with the care provided to a young woman with complex care needs by the Council and Trust. West Berkshire Council (23 010 074) Summary: Miss X complained about the quality of work carried out under a disabled facilities grant which she says has left her without adequate shower facilities. There was no fault in the way the Council has responded to the concerns Miss X raised about the quality of the works. However, the Council commissioned contractor failed to update the construction phase health and safety plan to include that food should not be consumed on the premises. This was fault. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Ms X £200 to acknowledge the uncertainty this caused Miss X over whether an allergic reaction she had could have been avoided. 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