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. Halton Borough Council (23 005 543) Summary: Ms X complained the Council refused to provide her with advocacy support. She also complained the Council did not complete the actions of a previous Ombudsman investigation. Ms X said this caused her distress and impacted her mental and physical health. The Council was not at fault. Bedford Borough Council (23 011 164) Summary: Ms X complains the Council's care provider, Bluebird Care Bedford, failed to meet her needs properly. The evidence shows there has been no fault by the Council. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (24 009 038) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs A's complaint, brought by Mrs B, about the care visits from a Council-commissioned care provider and the information the provider gave in response to the complaint. We could not add to the Council's investigation nor achieve a different outcome, and the matters complained of did not cause Mrs A sufficient significant personal injustice to warrant investigation. Apollo Home Healthcare Ltd (24 010 422) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a carer outside their caring responsibilities. The law prevents us investigating matters that are not related to the provision of adult social care by the Care Provider. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (24 007 097) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council failing to respond to his stage two complaint in a timely manner. This is because the substantive complaint matter is out of the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. Essex County Council (24 008 861) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to stop Ms X's package of care. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Liverpool City Council (24 008 911) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council failing to respond to his information request. This is because there is another body better placed to consider his complaint. North East Lincolnshire Council (24 010 420) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled a safeguarding investigation. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Surrey County Council (23 017 173) Summary: Miss P complains on behalf of her son. They complain the Council took eight months to agree to fund a suitable supported living placement for him. The Council's only consideration was cost and its offers were not person centred. We uphold the complaint because of some fault in the care and support plan review process. But this led to limited injustice due to actions the Council later took. We do not agree that the Council's only consideration was cost. Ardale (Oakham) Limited (23 017 584) Summary: Mrs W complains on behalf of her late father, Mr Y, about the standard of care and support he received whilst at Oakham Grange Residential Care Home. In particular, she says the home did not appropriately manage and administer Mr Y's medication. The local safeguarding authority investigated the concerns and concluded with a finding of neglect and organisational abuse. It made a number of recommendations for service improvements. The care provider has agreed to apologise to Mrs W and make a symbolic payment in recognition of the uncertainty and distress caused by the failures. Leeds City Council (23 018 552) Summary: The complainant's representative (Mr X) complained about the way the Council charged for the care services provided to his mother (Mrs Y). The Council has accepted it failed when charging for Mrs Y's non-residential care services and offered some remedies. The Council has made some service improvements. The Council agreed to apologise following our guidance on remedies, to pay more for Mr X's distress and to re-calculate Mrs Y's care charges. We will not investigate the part of Mr X's complaint about disability related expenditure. We have already considered some disability related expenditure in Mr X's previous complaint and for others we could not achieve more than the Council has already offered. P & B Kennedy Holdings Limited (24 001 899) Summary: There is evidence the care provider failed to ensure that the late Mrs X always had a varied and nutritious diet which met her needs. The care provider did not complete its response to Mrs A's complaint. The care provider says it has improved the catering standards since this complaint. The care provider now agrees to apologise to Mrs A, provide evidence of the improved standards, and offer a sum in recognition of the anxiety caused to Mrs A. Durham County Council (24 004 467) Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the way a care agency, acting on behalf of the Council, delivered Ms X's home care, and no fault in the way it, or the Council responded to her complaints about this. Ardale (Oakham) Limited (24 004 946) Summary: Mrs W complains on behalf of her late mother, Mrs Y, about the standard of care and support she received whilst at Oakham Grange Residential Care Home. In particular, she says the home did not appropriately manage and administer Mrs Y's medication, did not ensure staff used safe moving and handling techniques and failed to monitor her weight and nutritional needs. The local safeguarding authority investigated the concerns and concluded with findings of neglect and organisational abuse. It made several recommendations for service improvements. The care provider will also apologise to Mrs W and make a symbolic payment in recognition of the uncertainty and distress caused by the failures. Leeds City Council (24 005 426) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding, delays, and failures to keep updated. The Council accepts fault and says it will meet with the complainant to discuss remedy. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by the Ombudsman while that is continuing. Leicestershire County Council (24 007 856) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to backdate care charges for a period where the complainant was unaware these would be chargeable. This is because the Council has waived all charges for this period and this decision provides a sufficient remedy to any injustice caused to the complainant. Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (24 008 040) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about contributions to the cost of adult social care and feeling threatened by the Council. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would find any significant fault by the Council. It is unlikely we would add to the Council's investigation or reach a different outcome. Surrey County Council (24 008 236) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a blue badge application. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Staffordshire County Council (24 008 352) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of care the complainant's mother received while in residential care. This is because the issues complained about largely took place between 2020 and 2021 and the complaint is therefore late. Given the passage of time, there is not a realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair, and meaningful decision in the complainant's case and so there are no good reasons to exercise our discretion and investigate. Staffordshire County Council (24 003 098) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's delays and errors in calculating Mrs Y's contribution towards her care home charges and in sending an invoice. We find the Council's significant delays and the errors in the financial assessments are fault. These faults have caused Mrs X an injustice. Staffordshire County Council (24 008 086) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council failed to tell him about a debt earlier. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Brighton & Hove City Council (24 008 197) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to issue a blue badge. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Miss X can ask the Council for a review of its most recent decision if she disagrees with its outcome. Essex County Council (24 008 833) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about delay delivering equipment to meet his care needs. The Council has already acted to remedy the injustice caused by the delay. Nor will we investigate the other parts of his complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation. Blackpool Borough Council (24 013 558) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care in a nursing home in 2018. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complaint has been made late and there are no good reasons to investigate. London Borough of Bromley (24 013 754) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about residential care charges. That is because it is a late complaint. London Borough of Wandsworth (24 008 411) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement and any decisions made by the Court of Protection are outside our jurisdiction. Trafford Council (24 008 992) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to waive a payment due, which Mrs X said built up following administrative errors. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement. West Berkshire Council (24 009 062) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failure to provide free reablement care because there is not enough evidence of fault. The Council carried out a proper assessment of needs and explained the care was chargeable before the care started. The Council missed opportunities to explain why free care was not available in this case. But that is not significant enough to justify investigation and would not alter the outcome; the complainant received care which they must pay for. Gloucestershire County Council (24 009 419) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement in Mr X's care. The substantive matters are late and there is not a good reason for the delay in them being brought to the Ombudsman. Larchwood Care Homes (South) Limited (24 009 598) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint that care home staff are failing to facilitate contact between her and her mother, Ms Y. There is insufficient evidence of fault and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome or what Ms X wants. Hertfordshire County Council (24 013 913) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council failing to act on his request for social care records. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. This complaint is better dealt with by the Information Commissioner. Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (24 003 328) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the behaviour of a staff member at a group she attended. She says the staff member was unprofessional and verbally abused her. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. 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