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. Hertfordshire County Council (24 002 590) Summary: There was no fault in the Council's occupational therapy assessments of Miss Y following a multi-disciplinary meeting. Avery Homes WSM Limited (24 009 304) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about unacceptable and unprofessional conduct by a care home manager. This is because an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes. In addition, the faults have not caused any significant injustice and there is another body better placed to consider Mr X's complaint. London Borough of Hounslow (24 009 415) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an adult social care package and the associated costs. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council assessed the care and support needs and decided the necessary care package. The complainant did not know the cost of the package until after it started. The complainant accepted the care knowing they might have to pay for it; the Council confirmed the cost three weeks later, so 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. London Borough of Hillingdon (24 009 444) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's delay in carrying out a financial reassessment for his mother, Mrs Y, after her husband died. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement. London Borough of Redbridge (24 009 619) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about noise nuisance at an extra-care housing scheme. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. London Borough of Hounslow (24 010 048) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to refuse an application for a blue badge. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application. Essex County Council (24 010 438) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council delaying its safeguarding investigation into his wife Mrs X's fall during a care home respite stay, delaying in giving him some documents, officers not replying to some contacts and not disclosing other documents to him. Investigation of the fall incident would not add to the Council's investigation nor achieve a different outcome. There is insufficient unremedied personal injustice to warrant us investigating. It would be reasonable for Mr X to take the document disclosure issue to the Information Commissioner's Office. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (23 010 897) Summary: Ms C complains the Council has not properly assessed her care needs and provided support to meet her needs. There is no fault in the way the Council assessed Ms C. Ms C refused services because of care charges and alternative support. The Council is therefore also not responsible for failing to provide support. Somerset Council (23 014 652) Summary: Mrs X complained about a failure to properly plan her son's post-discharge care under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983. We found fault by the Council and the Trust for failings in their care planning. This led to avoidable uncertainty about whether Mrs X's son may have missed out on effective support which could have prevented a deterioration in his mental health. We recommend that the Council and the Trust apologise, make symbolic payments and take steps to improve their services. London Borough of Barnet (23 020 649) Summary: Mr X complained about the care provided to his late grandfather, Mr Y at the Council commissioned care home. The care home was at fault for not properly recording communication with relatives, for not completing an accident report and for when a staff member was rude to Mr Y. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty caused. The Council has already taken appropriate action to prevent a recurrence of the faults. London Borough of Barnet (24 000 546) Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed in assessing Mr Y's contribution towards his care home charges and in providing invoices for these charges. She also complained the Council delayed in responding to her queries which caused difficulties in managing Mr Y's finances. We found the Council's errors and delays in assessing Mr Y's contribution and in issuing invoices are fault. These faults have caused Ms X an injustice. Worcestershire County Council (24 001 901) Summary: Mr X complains the Council removed his access to a direct payment account and wrongly invoiced him for contributions and did not apologise. Mr X says this caused him avoidable and unnecessary distress. We find the Council at fault which caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X. Bath and North East Somerset Council (24 002 922) Summary: Mrs B's complaint followed a meeting she attended with the Council in August 2023 when it assessed her mother's care needs. We upheld her complaint, finding neither she nor her mother knew the reasons for that assessment. We also find the Council later provided wrong information in reply to a complaint. These faults caused injustice to Mrs B as distress. The Council has accepted these findings and agreed to remedy Mrs B's injustice. It has also agreed to make service improvements to improve its practice following this complaint. We set out details at the end of this statement. Hertfordshire County Council (24 003 915) Summary: Mr Z, on behalf of his grandson Mr X, complained the Council failed to provide appropriate support when he turned 18. The matters Mr Z raised were known to him in 2021 and he raised them with the Council at that time. This is a late complaint and falls outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. Essex County Council (24 009 912) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care at home. The Council explains it cannot agree to change care workers because of their nationality or language spoken. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and it is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would reach a different outcome. London Borough of Redbridge (24 012 844) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Disabled Person's Freedom Pass. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. North Yorkshire Council (23 010 223) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint the Council has failed to comply with her reasonable adjustments as it has not sent her documents on a USB memory stick as agreed. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, there are no worthwhile outcomes achievable from an investigation. Suffolk County Council (23 019 368) Summary: Mr D complained on behalf of his mother that the Council had overcharged for her care and support and failed to issue invoices. He also complains about delay responding to his complaint. We found fault causing an overcharge, distress and time and trouble. The Council has agreed to take the actions set out at the end of this statement to remedy the injustice caused. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (23 020 797) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care financial assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council completed the financial assessment. There is fault in delay completing an appeal of the financial assessment decision, and sending invoices for payment while the complaint was continuing. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a total payment of £250 to acknowledge the complainant's distress, time and trouble. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has agreed to take and it is unlikely an investigation would achieve anything further. London Borough of Ealing (23 020 987) Summary: Mr C complained about the Council's refusal to fund his wife's direct payment for the full week when she died. As a result, he said he had costs to pay her self-employed carer. We found no fault by the Council. This is because Mr C was not required to pay the self-employed carer under the arrangement when the care support ceased. The Council would therefore not be expected to have a contingency for this in place, and it was entitled to reach its view. London Borough of Bromley (24 000 566) Summary: Mr B complained that the Agency's technicians who attended his home, did not properly test his electrical equipment and falsely certified that they had tested the equipment. We have found fault. The Agency has already remedied the injustice caused by the fault and has taken action to reduce the risk of the fault happening again. East Sussex County Council (24 003 532) Summary: Mrs X complained about the quality of care provided to her late mother at a care home. We have ended the investigation as it is unlikely further investigation by us would lead to a different outcome and Mrs X says she has started legal action which will consider the same matters raised in the complaint to us. Portsmouth City Council (24 003 608) Summary: The Council failed to properly consider Ms X's medical conditions when assessing her application for a blue badge. East Sussex County Council (24 009 453) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint that her mother's care provider failed to provide care in line with the care plan. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Plymouth City Council (24 010 084) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to provide a disabled facilities grant to fund a hardstanding outside the complainant's home. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council decided the complainant does not meet the criteria for a grant. Coventry City Council (24 010 355) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Bristol City Council (23 015 115) Summary: Mr X complained the Council decided to stop his care package after a flawed reassessment of his social care needs, and that a subsequent reassessment was delayed. The Council was at fault for delay in completing the first reassessment. This caused Mr X avoidable frustration and uncertainty for which the Council will apologise. It will also issue a staff reminder about needs assessment timescales. The Council was not at fault in the other matters Mr X complained about. Oxfordshire County Council (23 018 940) Summary: Mr X complained about inflated invoices issued by the Council and his requests for them to be corrected being ignored; failure to explain and document how the Council had reached the figures for the corrected charges and said the Council changed its time sheet reporting software, but invoice inflation continued. We find the Council was at fault for delay and lack of consideration of Mr X's requests and failing to properly explain how it had reached the figures for the corrected charges. This caused Mr and Mrs X significant distress. We make several recommendations to address this injustice caused by fault. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (23 020 711) Summary: Mrs Y experienced poor care in a care home acting on behalf of the Council. A safeguarding investigation into this was insufficient and failed to acknowledge the impact the poor care had on Mrs Y's wellbeing. Devon County Council (24 004 956) Summary: There was fault by the Council in its financial assessment of Mrs Y's care charges. This caused avoidable distress and uncertainty. The Council will reconsider the decision that there had been a deprivation of capital, apologise and make a symbolic payment of £100 to reflect avoidable uncertainty and distress. Brighton & Hove City Council (24 008 904) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint the Council did not consider his concerns about his Local Healthwatch. It is not good use of public money to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, where we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 009 623) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision that his mother must pay half her income on care fees. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the Council has already provided an appropriate remedy. Liverpool City Council (24 009 937) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to charge Mr X for his care. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Dorset Council (24 010 276) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council reversing its decision to fund the complainant's late mother's care costs. This is because the Council made clear its decision was provisional pending further assessment and there is insufficient evidence that is further assessment was subject to fault. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (24 010 304) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's decision regarding a Disabled Facilities Grant and its handling of the matter. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating. London Borough of Harrow (24 010 329) 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. Hampshire County Council (23 017 812) Summary: We found fault with the end of life care provided to Mrs Y by the Nursing Home. The Nursing Home pay Mrs Y's daughter, Ms X, a symbolic financial remedy in recognition of the distress this caused. Westminster City Council (24 000 118) Summary: The Council failed to carry out a mental capacity assessment for Ms C at the time it should have. The Council's contracted care agency, Sage Care, also failed to provide the arranged care to Ms C for two days after she was discharged from hospital. The Council was at fault for not carrying out a mental capacity assessment for Ms C sooner than it did, and for the missed care visits to Ms C. Because of the fault, Ms C suffered a lack of care, and it caused stress to her son, Mr D. The Council will apologise to Ms C and Mr D, make a symbolic payment, and issue staff briefings. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (24 002 377) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint the Council did not tell the family about the cost of his father, Mr Y's respite care because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Rusthall Lodge Housing Association Limited (24 002 745) Summary: Mr B complains the Care Provider, Rusthall Lodge Housing Association Limited, did not provide him with full information about the care fees and annual fee increase before his relative, Mrs C, moved into its care home. I have discontinued my investigation of the complaint. The Care Provider has already made a suitable offer to Mr B to remedy the complaint which he has accepted. We would not be able to achieve anything more for Mr B or Mrs C so it is not worthwhile to continue the investigation. London Borough of Sutton (24 004 964) Summary: Mr A complained about the way the Council has dealt with the introduction of a fee for brokerage and administration of care. He said the Council did not provide enough information to allow him to understand this change. We did not find the Council at fault. Darlington Borough Council (24 007 871) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about care charges incurred by his father. The Council has agreed to a proportionate way to resolve the complaint. London Borough of Barnet (24 008 614) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision to refuse to provide a dog walking service for his assistance dog. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Brighton & Hove City Council (24 009 054) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council sharing information about Ms X. The Council has apologised for its adult services not having contacted Ms X to discuss allegations received from its library services. There is insufficient evidence of other fault by the Council, and its apology is sufficient. Royal Mencap Society (24 009 927) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about Mencap. That is because it does not relate to the provision of adult social care. London Borough of Hillingdon (24 010 266) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about how the Council is seeking payment of her late mother Mrs Y's unpaid care fees, and officers addressing a letter to her using her mother's name. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council leading to Mrs Y's estate being distributed before the care fee account was settled to warrant us investigating. An investigation of the wrongly addressed correspondence would not lead to a different outcome. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X seeks. Blossom Home Care Ltd (24 014 634) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about plumbing work carried out at her property. This is because it does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is reasonable to expect Mrs X to go to court to determine the Care Agency's liability. Milford Care Limited (24 009 211) Summary: Mrs A complains about the way the Care Home and GP Practice cared for her mother, Mrs B. We will not investigate this complaint because we are unlikely to achieve anything more. This is because the coroner has already looked at the issues, and there has already been an independent investigation. Spencer Grove Care Home (24 009 211b) Summary: Mrs A complains about the way the Care Home and GP Practice cared for her mother, Mrs B. We will not investigate this complaint because we are unlikely to achieve anything more. This is because the coroner has already looked at the issues, and there has already been an independent investigation. 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