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. Essex County Council (23 017 745) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's decision to stop funding activities that were previously included in her daughter, Y's care plan, and said the Council failed to consider Y's disability related expenditure. We find the Council at fault for the removal of an activity, miscommunication, and delay considering Y's disability related expenditure. This has caused uncertainty, distress, and a loss of funding. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Miss X, and improve its service. St. Matthews Limited (23 018 909) Summary: There is some evidence that the care provider did not always meet Mrs X's hydration needs while she was resident. The care provider should apologise and pay a sum to Mrs X and Mrs A in recognition of the distress caused. Hampshire County Council (24 001 385) Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council has assessed his father, Mr Y's finances and calculated his contribution towards the cost of his care. We found there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed Mr Y's finances. However the delays in responding to Mr X's complaints amount to fault, for which the Council should apologise. Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (24 002 136) Summary: Ms T complained about the way Barchester Healthcare Homes dealt with payment for her father's care. We found the Council is at fault in its communication with Ms T. Barchester Healthcare Homes has recognised this and apologised. It has also agreed to make a symbolic payment to Ms T in recognition of the impact on her. Milton Keynes Council (24 003 185) Summary: Mr X complains the Council is wrongly charging Mrs X for care fees. He says this impacts his emotional wellbeing and causes her financial stress. We find no fault with the Council charging care fees. However, we have found fault with its handling of the complaints. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr X to acknowledge its poor complaint handling. West Sussex County Council (24 009 572) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care charging. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. East Sussex County Council (24 010 182) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's decision to refuse free post 19 home to college transport for her son. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the matter to justify an investigation. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 014 027) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's handling of her safeguarding concerns, and its communication. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Cornwall Council (23 019 752) Summary: The Council was at fault because it delayed pursuing charges for the late Mr A's residential care. However, this did not cause injustice that warrants a further remedy. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 019 851) Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to support her properly after she asked for help in December 2023, and was only just setting up her direct payments when she contacted us in March 2024. The Council took far too long to set up Ms X's direct payments. It needs to apologise and pay financial redress. It also needs to improve its working practices. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (24 003 453) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly consider her application for a blue badge under the hidden disabilities criteria including referral to an expert assessor. She says she feels discriminated against because her disabilities are invisible. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered Miss X's application for a blue badge. London Borough of Brent (24 009 346) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about misinformation given to the hospital, and about the care support of a relative. Decisions around the relative's care and the complainant's status to be involved in the decision making are with the Court of Protection. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider concerns of accuracy of personal data. So, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable from an Ombudsman investigation. Leicester City Council (24 010 855) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to her request for support to move her relative into its area. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Cornwall Council (23 013 763) Summary: Ms D says the Council's care provider provided poor home care support for her mother. As a result, she says her mother was admitted to hospital several times. There was fault by the Council, causing Ms D distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed a remedy. West Sussex County Council (23 017 969) Summary: There was fault in the way the Council reviewed and changed a care plan. This has caused uncertainty about what the outcome would have been had all relevant matters been considered. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment and make service improvements. The Council has also agreed to carry out a reassessment. Salford City Council (24 000 537) Summary: Mr X complained about the care provided by a Council commissioned care provider, and that it cancelled his care package at short notice and accused him of harassment. The Council was at fault for an omission in the support plan. It has already apologised for this. It was also at fault for not specifying notice periods in the contract with the care provider. This meant the provider was entitled to end the care package under the contract. The Council has agreed to apologise for the distress and frustration caused to Mr X. It has already amended its contract arrangements to prevent recurrence of the fault in future. Somerset Council (24 003 485) Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's actions when she moved from children's to adult's social care. The Council failed to investigate Ms X's complaint under the children's statutory complaints procedure. This fault has caused avoidable frustration to Ms X. In recognition of this, the Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £200 and investigate her complaint using the children's statutory process. It has also agreed to issue staff reminders to prevent recurrence of the fault in future. Durham County Council (24 004 341) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not properly deal with her daughter's Care Act assessments during her transition from the Council's Children Services to its Adult Services. Mrs X also complained that this resulted in the Council failing to provide her daughter with a suitable supported living accommodation to meet her needs. There was no fault by the Council with how it dealt with Mrs X's daughter's transition to adult social care provision. London Borough of Hackney (24 008 429) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about potential financial mismanagement by an adult social care provider the Council arranged. The financial issues are being considered by the Department for Work and Pensions who are better placed to investigate. The Council has acknowledged the impact on the complainant from it delays and failures to update by apologising. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would add to that or reach a different outcome. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (24 010 172) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about contribution to the costs of adult social care. Although there is an impact on the complainant from a change of policy, it is unlikely we would find that impact is caused by Council fault. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, and it is unlikely we would reach a different outcome. Liverpool City Council (24 010 584) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X complaint about the Council's handling of her mother's care and support needs. This is because an investigation would not lead to any worthwhile outcomes. Allenbrook Home (Halesowen) Ltd (23 012 939) Summary: Ms B complains about the Home's communications with her about Funded Nursing Care and says its contract did not say how Funded Nursing Care was dealt with. We have found fault in the Home's contract and the Home has agreed to make amendments to the contract. North Lincolnshire Council (23 020 813) Summary: Mrs Y complains on behalf of her adult son, Mr D, that the Council wrongly reduced his personal budget without explanation. She says Mr D's eligible care and support needs have not changed. In our view, there is procedural fault because Mr D's support plan does not contain a breakdown of his personal budget which has caused confusion for Mrs Y. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused by fault with the actions listed at the end of this statement. Devon County Council (24 002 502) Summary: We have completed our investigation. There was no fault in how the Council assessed Z's care and support needs. However, the Council was at fault for failing to deal properly with Mrs X's complaint. The action already carried out by the Council is a suitable remedy for the injustice suffered by Mrs X. Hertfordshire County Council (24 003 161) Summary: We upheld a complaint about adaptations to Mr Y's property. The Council was at fault. It has taken some action to remedy the injustice by arranging an independent reassessment and apologising. The Council should ensure the works are completed and make a symbolic payment of £500 to reflect Mr Y's avoidable distress. London Borough of Lambeth (24 003 739) Summary: Mr W complained the Council failed to properly assess his mother-in law, Mrs X's, care needs before her discharge from hospital and failed to provide suitable financial advice regarding Mrs X's residential care charges. The Council is not at fault. The Council's care and support plan reflected Mrs X's assessed needs. The Council did not arrange Mrs X's residential care and was under no duty to provide financial advice. Telford & Wrekin Council (24 004 249) Summary: Mrs X complained about an error made by the Council in calculating when it would fund her husband's care home placement. We find the Council at fault for delays and miscalculating capital reduction, which caused Mrs X distress and uncertainty. We recommend the Council apologises and makes a payment to Mrs X. Somerset Care Limited (24 008 809) Summary: Ms A complains about the care and treatment her aunt, Mrs B, received at Lavender Court, run by Somerset Care. We will not investigate this complaint because Somerset Care has already admitted it made mistakes and acted to ensure they do not happen again. We have seen evidence of these actions and further investigation is unlikely to achieve anything more. Lavender Court (24 008 809a) Summary: Ms A complains about the care and treatment her aunt, Mrs B, received at Lavender Court, run by Somerset Care. We will not investigate this complaint because Somerset Care has already admitted it made mistakes and acted to ensure they do not happen again. We have seen evidence of these actions and further investigation is unlikely to achieve anything more. Birmingham City Council (24 009 661) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a report the Council submitted to a mental health tribunal. We could not achieve a meaningful outcome by investigating the matter. Medway Council (24 009 697) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care charges. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Suffolk County Council (24 009 869) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council has upheld the complaint and offered a suitable remedy. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Derby City Council (24 009 915) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about potential breaches of contract between the council and a care provider. It is reasonable to expect the care provider to take the matter to court. Essex County Council (24 015 267) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about damage caused to her shower. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. As Mrs X believes the Council is ultimately liable for the damage caused to her property, it is reasonable for her to take the Council to court. City of Wolverhampton Council (23 019 969) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care provided at home. The care provider acting on behalf of the Council has accepted fault, apologised for the impact, and acted to improve future service. It is unlikely we would achieve anything further by investigation. Ideal Carehomes (Number One) Limited (23 021 208) Summary: Mrs Z, on behalf of her mother Mrs x, complained the care provider failed to properly administer medication and failed to provide appropriate personal care. Mrs Z says this has caused distress and undermined her trust. The care provider accepts fault in respect of the administration of medication and some personal care issues, has apologised and taken action. The provides a proportionate and appropriate remedy for the injustice in this case. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 006 863) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charges for an adult social care package. This is a late complaint. Even if it were not late, we would not investigate. The complainant accepted the care knowing they might have to pay for it. The Council apologised for its delay and offered a repayment plan for the debt. There is no significant injustice to justify an investigation. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would add to the Council's investigation or reach a different outcome. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (24 009 106) Summary: We have upheld this complaint the Council has delayed in resolving a disagreement about accommodation costs. The Council has agreed to make a decision about the disputed costs within the next four weeks. That is proportionate to remedy the injustice caused. West Sussex County Council (24 009 192) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about delay in the Council setting up her direct payments. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Dorset Council (24 009 449) Summary: We have decided not to investigate Mr X's complaint about poor communication relating to funding his mother's care. The Council has upheld the complaint and apologised. It will make a payment to Mr X to recognise the uncertainty caused. Portsmouth City Council (24 009 513) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's refusal to delete records/information which contains false accusations made against him. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome he wants. In addition, the ICO is better placed to consider the matter. Leeds City Council (24 009 705) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alledged failure by the Council to properly explain the circumstances in which care and support services would become chargeable. This is because there is insufficient evidence the Council failed to explain this to the complainant fully before providing services. Derby City Council (24 010 745) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about Council charges for assistive equipment and errors in its invoicing since 2018. Her complaint is late and there are no good reasons why it could not have been made sooner. Hampshire County Council (22 014 935) Summary: Mr A has complained about a council and an integrated care board in relation to a lack of carer support for him, a poor transition between services, and a lack of adequate safeguarding action. He said this caused him and his son distress, and he suffered financial loss. We found fault with a lack of carer support provided to Mr A. The council and integrated care board agreed to our recommendations to address the issues Mr A had suffered. Habitat Care Limited (23 019 246) Summary: Mrs X complains Habitat Care Limited failed to provide care workers who were able to meet her father's needs as he approached the end of his life, leaving his family having to cover for them. The care provider accepts its services did not meet the required standard and has apologised. It needs to take action to improve its records keeping and make its quality checks more meaningful. South Oxfordshire District Council (24 007 493) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council exposing her to asbestos during works being completed under a disabled facilities grant. This is because an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes. 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