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. Priory Mews Healthcare Ltd (23 000 998, report) Summary: We investigated a complaint about the residential services provided to the complainant. We found Priory Mews Healthcare Limited did not notify Mr X promptly of the fees payable for his mother's care once she became self-funding. These faults meant Mr X received a large and unexpected invoice from the care provider. As a result he moved his mother from this home to a less expensive home, as he would have done sooner had he known of the actual fees. As a result, Mr X suffered injustice and his mother suffered the distress of moving to another home. West Sussex County Council (23 009 356) Summary: Mrs X complained that health and social care professionals would not allow her to take her husband home from hospital. We did not find fault in the organisations' actions. There is evidence to suggest professionals followed legislation and guidance in exploring concerns they had about the safety of the plan. Bristol City Council (24 000 487) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the provision of care to her late relative in a Care Home. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. Mrs X's complaint is the subject of an ongoing safeguarding investigation, so it is too early for the Ombudsman to intervene. Leeds City Council (23 001 845) Summary: Mr D complained about the Council's handling of his Care Act needs assessment and how it communicated with him. He said, as a result, he experienced distress and a loss of support. We found the Council at fault for causing delays to properly assess Mr D's needs over a 10-month period. We did not find fault in how it had regard to his reasonable adjustment request for how it communicated with him. The Council will apologise and make payment to acknowledge the distress and loss of support Mr D experienced. Bristol City Council (23 009 039) Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's failure to provide care to meet her assessed needs and related matters. We found the Council to be at fault. It took too long to provide care at the outset, told her to make her own arrangements when the Council could not find a suitable carer and took no action to respond to Ms X's concerns about lack of parenting support. This led Ms X cancelling her care package and being without care she needed for several months. There was also fault by the care provider when it sent an email to the wrong address on behalf of Ms X. To remedy the injustice to Ms X, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment and take action to improve its service. Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (23 011 818) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has failed to meet the need for respite breaks since the start of 2022, when it agreed to fund 28 overnight respite breaks a year. The Council has been at fault over its planning for overnight respite for Mrs X's son. There has also been service failure over the failure to provide all his planned respite breaks in 2022 and 2023. The Council needs to apologise and make a symbolic payment to the family for the additional pressures it has put upon them. Milton Keynes Council (23 015 685) Summary: Mr X complains the Council decided without his involvement that it would place his disabled son, P, in residential care. However, that did not happen, and P is now settled in a day service placement of his parents' choice, funded through the NHS. There is no evidence that P or his family suffered any injustice as a result of this or Mr X's other concern, that he was treated differently because he had complained, and so the investigation is now closed. London Borough of Croydon (23 021 246) Summary: We will not investigate Ms C's complaint about the way she has been treated by the Council. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an ombudsman investigation. We could not provide Ms C with the outcome she wants. Nottinghamshire County Council (24 000 344) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council treated Mr B. This is because further investigation by us could not add to the Council's response or make a different finding. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (24 000 815) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of Council officers. An Ombudsman investigation would not lead to a different outcome and there is not enough evidence of fault. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr B wants. Devon County Council (24 001 044) 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. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (24 001 071) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council has treated Mr B for the past 30 years. This is because we could not add to previous responses Mr B has received from the Council. Norfolk County Council (23 019 730) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not updating the complainant about safeguarding concerns he raised to it about another person. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, or the complainant suffering an injustice. Cambridgeshire County Council (23 011 946) Summary: Mrs C complained her family was not properly advised about the charges involved in securing a placement for her mother in a residential care home. Mrs C said she was not able to make a properly informed decision about her mother's care and incurred unexpected costs. We found fault by the Council but considered the action it had already proposed of waiving some fees, symbolic payment and service improvements provided a suitable remedy. London Borough of Sutton (23 014 280) Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council had failed to carry out an assessment of her son Mr C's needs or provide support to enable him to access the community. We found the Council delayed for six months in carrying out a care needs assessment for Mr C and a carer's assessment for Mrs B. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B, pay her £300, complete the assessments and improve its procedures for the future. Gloucestershire County Council (23 017 881) Summary: Mrs A complains about the section 117 aftercare being provided to her sister, Ms B. We should not investigate this complaint because the Trust has already admitted fault and taken steps to remedy the injustice to Ms B. Further investigation would not achieve anything more. Darlington Borough Council (23 020 516) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly comply with some of the recommended actions it agreed to complete following the Ombudsman's investigation into her original complaint about disability related expenditure requests. The Council was at fault for its delays and failure to properly complete the agreed actions. It was also at fault for its poor communication with Mrs X. This caused Mrs X and Mr Y injustice. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (23 020 887) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care in a residential care home. This is because it is unlikely that we could add to investigations already undertaken by the Care Provider and the safeguarding authority. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would lead to a different outcome. Somerset Council (23 002 549) Summary: Ms C complains the Council failed to support her daughter with claiming benefits which resulted in rent arrears. The Council is at fault for failing to take preventative action, properly review needs and deal with Ms C's complaint properly. This has caused uncertainty, time, trouble, and frustration. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to make Ms C a symbolic payment, provide a reminder to staff about person centred reviews, and the duty to take preventative action. North East Lincolnshire Council (23 017 720) Summary: The Council was at fault. It failed to follow government guidance on assessing blue badge applicants who have hidden disabilities. Its expert assessment was a cursory email which did not allow Mr X the chance to explain how his mental health conditions may mean he suffers very considerable psychological distress when walking. The Council will apologise, make Mr X a symbolic payment to reflect his avoidable distress and reconsider his application having regard to relevant parts of the government guidance. Mitchell's Care Homes Limited (24 002 971) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about damage caused to his properties. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. As Mr X believes the Care Provider is liable for the damage caused to his properties, it is reasonable for him to take the Care Provider to court. Warrington Council (23 019 120) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's decision that the setting up of a family trust amounted to a deprivation of assets. The Council has agreed to make a payment to recognise the uncertainty caused by its delay in making the decision. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify us investigating the decision-making process. London Borough of Wandsworth (23 017 445) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the decision to detain him under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983. This is because Mr X appealed this decision to the First Tier Tribunal (Mental Health). This means we are prevented from investigating this complaint. West Northamptonshire Council (22 009 742) Summary: Miss D complained about the lack of mental health and social care provided to her son, Mr B, when he was discharged from hospital. She said this led to a lack of joint working between the Council, the Trust and the Integrated Care Board (ICB). She said they did not make reasonable adjustments when communicating with Mr B. Miss D also complained about the way the ICB handled her complaint. We found fault in the way they organisations considered and provided support to meet Mr B's holistic mental health and social care needs. They did not properly consider their duty to make reasonable adjustments when communicating with him. The ICB's complaint handling was poor, and it failed to provide Miss D with a satisfactory complaint response. The organisations agreed to our recommendations and will apologise to Miss D and Mr B, they will make symbolic payments, assess Mr B's holistic needs and issue guidance to their staff in areas where they need to improve. 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