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 Barnet (23 010 937) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not completing an adult social care assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. London Borough of Hounslow (23 016 743) Summary: Mr X complained about the standard of care delivered to his family member, Mr Y, by a provider acting on behalf of the Council. We found fault because the Council failed to act decisively to investigate Mr X's complaint. This caused avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. To remedy the injustice caused by the fault, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to the family, issue reminders to relevant staff and review some of its processes. Midshires Care Limited (24 001 994) Summary: The care provider did not apply the contract terms properly and has now agreed to refund the relevant notice period. The care provider has also now apologised to Mrs X for its handling of this matter and offered a sum recognising the time, trouble and distress she was caused in pursuing this. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (24 003 251) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about delay with adaption works completed under a disabled facilities grant. He says this was caused by delayed payments. He also complains about the Council's decision to partially refund him for the services of a surveyor which he considered unnecessary. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault. Trafford Council (24 003 607) Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of his mother, Mrs Y. He says the care provider on behalf of the Council failed to communicate with the family and did not have any understanding of his mother's needs. He also says it had unsafe practices. Mr X says the Council failed to respond to him when he raised a complaint. Mr X says this caused him and his family distress. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for failing to ensure the care provider could access Mrs Y's property leading to missed medication and for failing to respond to Mr X's complaint. The Council has agreed to issue an apology, pay a financial payment to Mr X and complete service improvements. Hartlepool Borough Council (24 007 866) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to end adult social care involvement. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Kent County Council (24 009 423) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's safeguarding investigation which may relate to Mrs X. The matter is currently ongoing, and we could not come to sound conclusions at this time. It is open to Mrs X to complain to us after investigations have reached a conclusion, if necessary. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (23 017 990) Summary: Mr Y complained about the frequent changes in social worker and delays with progressing and supporting him to source appropriate long term accommodation for him. We found some fault in the Council's actions causing injustice to Mr Y. However, we also note the complexity of Mr Y's case and several factors affecting the Council's ability to progress the case. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused. Royal Borough of Greenwich (23 021 130) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to a debt Ms X said the Council owed to her organisation. It would be reasonable to expect Ms X to have pursued this debt through the civil courts. Leicestershire County Council (24 004 705) Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's failure to support her son properly in the time leading up to his death. We have discontinued the investigation into this complaint, as the coroner will be holding an inquest into the son's death, which is likely to consider similar issues to those Mrs X has complained to the Ombudsman about. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (24 007 748) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint she is not eligible for a Disabled Facilities Grant. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Cheshire West & Chester Council (24 007 803) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council sending demand notices for a debt related to his late father's care charges. This is because an investigation would not lead to any further findings or worthwhile outcomes. Norfolk County Council (24 008 069) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X complaint about the invoices the Council sent her regarding her son's care and support charges and the Council's failure to provide a breakdown of the charges. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Carebase (Redhill) Limited AKA Acorn Court Care Home (24 008 072) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs Y's care in a care home. We could not achieve a worthwhile or meaningful outcome by investigating the matter further. City of York Council (24 008 531) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's refusal to refund her for the period her husband did not use the services of his care provider. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. London Borough of Haringey (24 008 796) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council not taking any action against an individual he believes is using a blue badge fraudulently. This is because the claimed fault has not caused him any injustice. Wiltshire Council (24 008 830) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an adult social care needs assessment and a failure to provide required support. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. London Borough of Merton (24 009 122) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about missing documents to decide the funding of adult social care. We cannot know if there is a financial injustice until the Council completes the financial assessment. To enable that, the complainant would need to provide the information again. Although that is frustrating and annoying for the complainant, it is not a significant injustice to justify an Ombudsman investigation. There is no worthwhile outcome from an Ombudsman investigation at this stage. Derbyshire County Council (24 009 187) Summary: Ms X complains about Derbyshire County Council and Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust. She says the organisations acted with fault when she was detained in hospital under the Mental Health Act in 2022. Ms X's complaint is late and there are not enough good reasons for the Ombudsmen to investigate it now. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (23 012 837) Summary: Mr A has complained about a council and hospital regarding his father-in-law, Mr B's hospital discharge and homecare fees. We found fault with the hospital about a failed physiotherapy referral leading to a delay in this therapy which led to uncertainty about Mr B's recovery. We did not find fault with the other aspects of this complaint. The hospital has agreed to carry out our recommendation in relation to physiotherapy. Kent County Council (23 021 125) Summary: Mrs D complained the Council delayed providing her son with an assisted living placement. She also complained the Council failed to provide her with support in setting up direct payments and it did not provide her with respite care. We find the Council was at fault for its delays in exploring an assisted living placement for Mrs D's son. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Norfolk County Council (24 007 323) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's refusal to provide transport to and from her adult son's day centre. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, there is another body better placed to consider her complaint. Cheshire West & Chester Council (24 007 919) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about being charged for care which she believes should have been free as she was told it was reablement care. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Southampton City Council (24 008 581) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council wrongfully terminating his company's contract for services. This is because there is an alternative legal remedy available. Cheshire East Council (23 018 188) Summary: The complainant says the Council's assessment of residential care charges is flawed, and it wrongly took safeguarding action. The Council is at fault for not providing proper reasons for some residential care charges and for the way it completed safeguarding. To remedy the anxiety, time and trouble, the errors caused; the Council has agreed to apologise to the complainant and make a symbolic payment. It will also provide clear reasons for its charging decision and make service improvements. Derbyshire County Council (23 019 844) Summary: Mr F complained on behalf of his mother, Mrs J, that the Council failed to take action after she was discharged from hospital in May 2023. As a result she was left needing residential care. Mr F also complained that the Council's financial assessment did not take all his mother's costs into account. We found some fault by the Council in the way it dealt with matters but this did not cause injustice to Mrs J. Lyndhurst Rest Home Limited (23 021 319) Summary: Mr F complained on behalf of his late father about the care provided at Lyndhurst Rest Home on the day he died. We found no fault in the care provided but there was fault with complaint handling for which the Care Provider has now apologised. Erewash Borough Council (24 003 163) Summary: Miss B complains about how the Borough Council supervised disabled adaptations to her home. There was no fault by the Borough Council or its agents acting on its behalf. The Borough Council acted quickly to make sure the gas leak was fixed. It met its building control duties, and the County Council, acting on its behalf, made sure that defective drainage was rectified. Leeds City Council (24 008 498) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision to seek to recover care costs from him and its decision that he had deprived himself of assets. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 008 591) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms X's tenant's need for adult social care. We cannot achieve the outcome she seeks. Wiltshire Council (24 010 562) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to issue a companion bus pass. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. 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. Westcountry Home Care Ltd (23 020 362) Summary: Mr X complained the care provider did not provide a breakdown of its costs and carers did not attend for their allotted visit times. He also complained about the standard of care provided to his mother. We have found the actions of the care provider caused injustice. The care provider agreed to apologise, make payments for the distress and uncertainty caused and carry out a service improvement. Lancashire County Council (23 020 866) Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Mr X's care arrangements. It acted properly and in accordance with the law. There is no fault in the charges levied for Mr X's residential stay. There is fault in the way the Council dealt with Mrs X's complaint. It delayed in responding and failed to address all points of complaint. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (24 002 749) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's delay in assessing his care needs and the adequacy of his subsequent care and support plan. The Council accepts it delayed in assessing Mr X and failed to carry out a proper assessment. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, carry out a new assessment and make a payment to Mr X to recognise the care costs he incurred as a result of its delay. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (24 006 991) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care planning. We are satisfied with the Council's actions to accept fault and learn from the complaint. It is unlikely we would add to the Council's investigation or achieve a different outcome. London Borough of Ealing (24 007 338) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to provide a refund of a particular amount for care costs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault that a refund of this amount was actually owed. Willowbrook Healthcare Limited (24 007 572) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Care Provider has responded to Mrs X's concerns about her mother's care. Investigation by the Ombudsman would not result in a different outcome, as the Care Provider has already addressed the issues and there is insufficient evidence its actions caused significant injustice. Medway Council (24 007 997) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council charging him a contribution for his care and support and for failing to take into consideration his personal outgoings when completing his financial assessment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Kent County Council (24 008 027) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the respite care her late husband Mr X received at a care home commissioned by the Council. Investigation would not add to previous safeguarding enquiries nor lead to a different outcome. Hampshire County Council (24 008 110) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to disregard Mrs Y's property when it assessed her finances and its refusal to offer her a Deferred Payment Agreement. The dispute at the centre of the complaint relies on interpretation of the law. The courts are therefore best placed to consider the matter. Blackpool Borough Council (24 008 283) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to an adult social care complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Portsmouth City Council (24 008 312) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the outcome of a means test for a Disabled Facilities Grant. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. 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