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. Gloucestershire County Council (23 013 963) Summary: Mrs Y complains about delays in the Council's assessments of her mother, Mrs Z, once she moved into a care home in 2022. In our view, there was delay in the allocation of a social worker and the subsequent care and support needs assessment. There was also some delay in completing the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard authorisation. The Council has already waived some of the care home fees. It will also apologise to Mrs Y in recognition of her time and trouble. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (23 014 389) Summary: Miss C complained on behalf of her father, Mr D that the Council had not provided clear and transparent information about the likely level of the contribution he would have to make towards his care charges before he agreed to a care package and then delayed in completing the financial assessment. We found the Council did not provide clear enough information about the likely level of the contribution and took 12 weeks to confirm the amount, causing a large debt to build up. The Council has agreed to pay £1000 to Mr D which can be offset against the outstanding amount, to agree an affordable repayment plan for the remaining debt and to improve its procedures for the future. Leicester City Council (23 015 025) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the standard of care provided to Mr C. This is because we could not add to the Council's response or make a different finding of the kind Mr C wants. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (23 018 765) Summary: Miss Y complains about the process followed by the Council when considering her application for a Blue Badge. We find there is procedural fault because the Council's assessment did not consider all the evidence about the physical effects of Miss Y's medical conditions and any impact on her ability to walk. The Council will apologise and refer Miss Y's application for a fresh assessment. Worcestershire County Council (24 001 856) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about social worker provision and his current social worker. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council and an investigation by this office would not be able to add to the response the Council has already provided on the matter. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 002 194) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's alleged failure to allow Mrs X to visit her late mother Mrs Y whilst she was in residential care. This is because the complaint relates to events that took place more than 12 months ago; it would have been reasonable for Mrs X to bring the complaint to us sooner. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (23 009 839) Summary: Ms B complains about the way the care home decided to admit Miss C to the care home and then changed its mind soon after. We have found fault and the Council has agreed to apologise and pay a small financial remedy. City of York Council (23 011 019) Summary: Mr B complained about the care provided by a care agency, the Council's and the agency's communications with him and the agency's records. We have not found fault with the care provided by the agency or the Council's and the agency's communication with Mr B. However, there was some fault in the agency's record keeping. The Council has agreed to apologise and to remind the agency of the importance of good record keeping. London Borough of Barnet (23 012 662) Summary: Mr X says the Council failed to properly investigate his complaint regarding day care costs incurred by him on behalf of his son, Mr Y. Mr X also says the Council failed to respond to his request for additional provision for Mr Y. The Council has not completed a review of Mr Y's care and support plan since July 2021. This is fault and has caused Mr X distress and a financial injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise, review Mr Y's care and support plan, refund day care costs from July 2022 and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (23 013 463) Summary: We found fault with the falls care provided to Mr X when he was resident in a care home. We also found fault with the safeguarding enquiries carried out by the local safeguarding authority. The organisations involved will apologise to Mr X's daughter, Ms Y, and explain what action they will take to prevent similar problems occurring for other service users. They will also pay Ms Y a financial remedy in recognition of the distress these events caused her. Essex County Council (23 013 625) Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to support her in her carer role and confirm respite; changed her son's support package and failed to confirm what it will be; and retracted some provision it had previously offered. We find the Council was at fault. This caused significant distress to Miss X. We make several recommendations to address this injustice caused by fault. London Borough of Hillingdon (23 014 816) Summary: Ms D complained about the way the Council dealt with her father's care charges after he was discharged from hospital. We found the Council at fault for failing to provide enough information about the care charges before the costs were incurred. The Council will apologise and waive the fees to acknowledge the injustice it caused. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (23 018 435) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's management of Mr X's finances. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council's actions. London Borough of Islington (23 019 283) Summary: Mr B complained about the assessment and decision to detain him under the Mental Health Act, and the care provided in hospital. We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the decision to detain him under the Mental Health Act, as he has previously appealed this decision at the mental health tribunal. We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the care he received while he was staying on the hospital ward, as it is unlikely an investigation would add to the response Mr B has already received from the Trust. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (23 020 620) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs B's Best Interest Assessment (BIA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) assessment in 2021. This is because we could not add to the Council's responses or make a different finding of the kind Mr B wants. Surrey County Council (24 000 057) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's assessment that a stairlift would meet her mother's needs, instead of the downstairs toilet the family wanted. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Warwickshire County Council (24 000 519) 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. North Somerset Council (24 001 410) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial assessment for adult social care charges. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. The Council completed the assessment in line with its relevant policy and explained the reasons for its decision. Gloucestershire County Council (23 015 666) Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council calculated what his son, Mr Y, should pay towards his care. The Council was at fault. This meant Mr Y paid more for his care than he should have for over a year. The fault also caused Mr X and Mr Y's mother, Mrs X, avoidable frustration. The Council will apologise to Mr and Mrs X, reimburse Mr Y the money he should not have paid towards his care and issue a staff reminder. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (23 016 970) Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not carry out a proper financial assessment or consider disability-related expenses for her daughter, D. The Council is at fault for delay in reviewing the financial assessment, conducting a joint assessment and responding to correspondence. It has also failed to consider housing expenses in the financial assessment. This has caused distress to Ms D and Ms X. Leeds City Council (23 017 677) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Brighton & Hove City Council (24 000 547) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about lost items within a care home. This is because it is unlikely we could add to the care provider's investigation which could not identify how and when the items went missing. It would be more suitable for the police or insurance company to consider the complaint about the missing items, as either theft or a claim to replace the lost items. Burlington Care (Yorkshire) Limited (24 001 036) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs D's care provider charging for care. This is because the Care Provider has remedied the injustice caused by fault and we are satisfied with this remedy. London Borough of Islington (24 001 367) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the care provided by a Council-commissioned care provider. We could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council. Devon County Council (24 001 406) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge. This is because the Council has awarded a badge and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (24 003 533) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a safeguarding alert. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We cannot achieve anything to add to the Council's ongoing enquiries and also the Care Quality Commission is better placed to consider. London Borough of Haringey (23 009 571) Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council dealt with requests for equipment he needed to aid his everyday life and the Council's communication with him, including its complaint handling. We found fault because the Council failed to adequately communicate with him and consider what other action it could take when equipment was delayed. To remedy the injustice caused by this fault, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, make a payment and review some of its processes. Brighton & Hove City Council (23 011 982) Summary: We found no fault with how a Council and NHS Trust completed a best interest decision about a discharge from hospital. We also found no fault with the time it took the Council to complete a care needs assessment. We did find there was service failure that led to a delay in arranging a care package. This prevented Mr Y from returning to his own home sooner. The Council has agreed actions we recommended to remedy the distress and the financial loss caused by the faults. West Northamptonshire Council (23 013 060) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's communication about her direct payments and a lack of services to her in relation to her care. We did not find fault with the Council's actions or how it has tried to support her in the past few years. Staffordshire County Council (23 015 722) Summary: A care home, owned by the Council, failed to take appropriate action to manage the falls risk for Mrs Y, despite her vulnerability. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (23 021 138) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's communications with him about the care needs of his family member. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. This is because we have no remit to look at what happened during court proceedings, and we are unlikely to find evidence of fault in other matters. Somerset Council (23 011 179) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's oversight of a micro-care provider. The complaint is late, and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to consider it now. North Somerset Council (23 012 177) Summary: Avon & Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust did not appropriately record Miss X's reasonable adjustments during a meeting. That did not cause her an injustice but the Trust should still take action to stop similar fault happening to others. Also, an Approved Mental Health Professional for North Somerset Council did not inform Mr X of his rights as Miss X's nearest relative following a Mental Health Act assessment. The Council should apologise for the frustration caused to him. London Borough of Hounslow (23 020 566) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council did not provide floating support with his housing. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (24 000 040) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial assessment for adult social care charges. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and we could not achieve the outcome the complainant wants. Southend-on-Sea City Council (24 001 049) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a defective shower rail fitted as a disabled adaptation by the Council's contractors. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is nothing to add to the Council's responses as it has responded appropriately. Further, it would be reasonable to expect Mr X to take his claim for damage/personal injury to court. London Borough of Barnet (24 001 280) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to issue a Freedom Pass (disability based). This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice. Blackpool Borough Council (23 018 855) Summary: Mr X complains about inadequate record keeping and poor responses to requests for information by two mental health providers. In addition, Mr X complains about failings in the process of applying for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. We will not investigate the complaint because parts are late, parts have already been considered by the courts, parts would be better considered elsewhere and it would be too soon to consider other issues. London Borough of Merton (24 000 046) Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y's complaints about the Council's adult social care support of Ms X because we decided Mr Y was not a suitable representative and because the complaints are late. We will also not investigate Mr Y's complaints about the Council's carer's assessments and poor communication because these complaints are late. London Borough of Merton (24 000 050) Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y's complaints about the Council's adult social care support of Mr X because the matters complained about occurred between 2015 and 2018. Therefore, the complaints are late, and we decided not to exercise discretion to investigate these matters. Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (23 015 808) Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council considered Mrs X's request for increased care hours. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot question the merits of its decision. 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