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. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (23 020 156) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the outcome of his occupational therapy assessment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. West Sussex County Council (24 000 941) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council not automatically applying rate uplifts to direct payments. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. London Borough of Hounslow (24 001 118) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council. Derby City Council (24 001 124) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care Mrs Y received in 2022. Much of the complaint is late and there is not a good reason for the delay in bringing the matter to the Ombudsman. We could not achieve anything further by investigating other matters, and other bodies are better placed to consider parts of the complaint. Essex County Council (24 001 202) Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaint about care and support provided to her late aunt, Ms C. This is because another agency is better placed to provide Ms B with the outcome she wants. Staffordshire County Council (23 012 191) Summary: the Council failed to act promptly to ensure Mrs X's son D received an early referral for NHS funding of his needs. As a result there was a delay of nine months between the review meeting which agreed his needs and the funding being made available, while Mrs X continued to pay for his support. The Council will explain how it has reviewed its processes since then, apologise to Mrs X and offer a sum which recognises the distress caused to her and to D over that time. London Borough of Haringey (23 012 847) Summary: Miss Y complains about problems during the build of a Disabled Facilities Grant to adapt her house to meet the needs of her children. The Council has already acknowledged and accepted that some aspects of the workmanship was poor, and that Miss Y and her family experienced an unusual amount of disruption. We agree with the Council's findings but have recommended additional remedy which the Council has agreed to implement. Thurrock Council (23 018 925) Summary: We ended the investigation of Mrs X's complaints about a council-run care home because they are late. And complaints about a GP and about access to records are not for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. Mrs X needs to raise these matters with the Information Commissioner and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (24 000 295) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about security measures in a care home. This is because the Care Provider's actions do not cause a significant enough injustice to justify an Ombudsman investigation. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 000 483) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs B's placement, or the way Mrs D has been treated by staff. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs D wants. Lancashire County Council (24 000 889) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Redwood Tower UK Opco 2 Limited (24 000 954) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about personal injury, because it is for a court to decide legal liability and compensation awards. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (24 001 043) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to exclude her from an adult education course. This is because we have no jurisdiction to consider actions relating to conduct, management or discipline in schools or education establishments. London Borough of Islington (22 016 562) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to properly assess her father, Mr Z's, care needs. She also complained the Council did not provide sufficient care in line with Mr Z's wishes and the Equality Act since January 2023. Ms X complained the Council was dishonest about its assessment of Mr Z's needs and failed to communicate with her properly about the decisions made about her father's care. There was some fault in how the Council initially assessed Mr Z's needs which caused Ms X frustration and uncertainty. The Council will apologise to Ms X and pay her a symbolic amount of £300 to recognise the injustice caused to her. Trafford Council (23 014 013) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to reduce Ms Y's care package after it was temporarily increased. The Council was at fault for increasing the package without telling Ms Y, in how it decided to increase the package, for delay reviewing it and delay progressing obtaining a hoist for Ms Y. This caused Ms Y distress and meant she paid for care she did not need. The Council will reimburse Ms Y the extra money she paid during this time and issue staff reminders. London Borough of Havering (23 015 037) Summary: Mrs X says the Council was wrong to charge her for a stay in a care home and delayed telling her about the cost. Mrs X's stay in the care home did not fall in an exception category. However, the Council failed to properly consider the care and support statutory guidance about temporary stays in care homes and failed to keep detailed records about the advice provided about the cost. An apology, a new financial assessment and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy. Raj & Knoll Limited (23 021 025) Summary: We will not investigate Mr C's complaint about Mrs B's care provider increasing her care fees. This is because we could not add to the Care Provider's responses or make a different finding of the kind Mr C wants. East Sussex County Council (24 000 422) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council allowing her mother's life insurance payments to lapse. Further investigation would not lad to a different outcome and any financial responsibility owed by the Council is best decided by the Courts. Wiltshire Council (24 000 828) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay completing an adult social care assessment for deprivation of liberty. This is because we could not say the outcome would be different despite that delay. Sunderland City Council (23 012 499) Summary: Mrs X complained about the quality of care the Council's commissioned care provider, the mews care home provided to her late aunt. We find the Council was at fault. This caused significant distress to Mrs X and her family. The Council has agreed to make several recommendations to address this injustice caused by fault. Surrey County Council (23 013 193) Summary: The Council delayed in responding to Mrs X's request for an increase in care hours, unfairly recouped direct payment monies, and failed to investigate issues relating to the amount and timing of direct payments. London Borough of Bromley (23 015 349) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council incorrectly declined their request for support with care fees, failed to properly consider their evidence and based its decision on deprivation of a property sale asset on wrong assumptions. We do not find fault in the Council's actions. Durham County Council (23 015 971) Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of Mr and Mrs Y. Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with Mrs Y's care charges. He also complained communication from the Council was poor. Mr X said the matter impacted Mr Y's health and finances. There was fault in the way the Council did not follow policy consistently and communication was poor. The Council has taken appropriate action to remedy any injustice caused by this fault. London Borough of Hounslow (23 018 829) Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it handled Mr X's application for a disabled parking badge. It considered the information available, processed the application in accordance with the government's best practice guidance and made a decision which, in the circumstances, was not obviously unreasonable. As there was no procedural fault in how the Council dealt with Mr X's application, I cannot question its decision. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (24 000 854) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the care his mother, Mrs Z, receives. We do not accept Mr X as a suitable representative for Mrs Z. Lincolnshire County Council (22 007 447) Summary: There is evidence of a poor standard of care by the Council's commissioned care provider, and a safeguarding investigation upheld Mr A's complaints about neglect which affected his brother Mr X. The Council has waived the fees for the period of care and offered a sum in recognition of the time and trouble Mr A went to in making the complaint. It agrees to offer a greater sum to recognise the distress caused by the poor standard of care, and evidence the action taken to ensure service improvements at its commissioned provider. Devon County Council (23 000 829) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council wrongly refused to issue her a blue badge, based on an incorrect mobility report. The Council was not at fault. It assessed her eligibility in line with government guidance. Essex County Council (23 009 955) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with the implementation of Mr X's son's care plan. Mr X complains there was a breakdown in communication, the Council refused to explain how his son's contribution became nil, and about the Council's to only fund one hour per week to cover the management of his son's care package. This is because the alleged faults have not caused any significant injustice. In addition, there is no ongoing significant injustice. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (23 011 950) Summary: Miss X complained about delays and poor communication from the Council when repairing and replacing equipment it provided to meet her care and support needs. There was fault in how the Council's community equipment service took too long to replace and repair community equipment it had provided to Miss X. It also failed to properly communicate with Miss X or to take a proactive approach when the delays became prolonged. The Council agreed to pay Miss X the financial remedy is had already offered and apologise further for the extra injustice we have found. It also agreed to review its equipment service's and supplier's procedures. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (23 013 328) Summary: Ms C complains a day centre inappropriately cancelled her son's day care provision. Ms C funded the day centre through a direct payment. The Council is therefore not responsible for the actions of the day centre. The Council acted properly when it was aware there were issues at the day centre. Leicestershire County Council (23 017 894) Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council dealt with Mr Y, her late husband's non-residential care charges. The Council was at fault for its failure to complete a financial assessment for Mr Y in 2021 and its failure to inform the family about his assessed contribution. The Council was also at fault for its delay with issuing an invoice for Mr Y's care charges. This caused injustice to Mrs X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused. London Borough of Harrow (23 010 494) Summary: We have found fault with the Council for not inviting Mrs X's mother (Mrs Y) for a financial assessment when it became aware that her capital may have fallen below the upper threshold for care contributions. We have not identified any injustice caused by this fault because on balance, the outcome would have been the same had the assessment taken place. 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