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. Moors Park (Bishopsteignton) Limited (23 001 565, report) Summary: The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman investigated a complaint about care home fees charged to the complainant's mother. We found Moors Park (Bishopsteignton) Limited: imposed additional charges for care provided over a weekly baseline limit of 25 hours, which was not set out in the contract; charged other residents additional fees without first amending their contracts;  This meant the care home caused the woman financial injustice and her son suffered time and trouble complaining. London Borough of Islington (24 000 360) Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed completing a social care assessment, issuing a care and support plan and putting in place funding to meet her care and support needs. Sheffield City Council (24 005 127) Summary: The Council's contracted care agency, Hallam24 Healthcare, failed to provide adequate home care to Mrs C. The Council also delayed carrying out a care review and informing her daughter, Miss B of the outcome of its safeguarding investigations. The Council was at fault for its delays and lack of communication, and for the poor standard of care given to Mrs C. Because of the fault, Mrs C suffered a lack of care, and it caused uncertainty, stress and worry to Miss B. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss B, make a symbolic payment, issue staff briefings and provide staff training. Somerset Council (24 006 421) Summary: X complained the Council failed to properly communicate with them and delayed carrying out an assessment when they requested support to meet their care needs. The Council was at fault for the delay in assessing X's needs. It has agreed to apologise and make a payment to acknowledge the frustration and uncertainty this caused X. The Council also failed to properly consider X's request for reasonable adjustments. The Council has already apologised for the distress this caused. It has agreed to remind officers to check for any reasonable adjustments when communicating with service users. Derbyshire County Council (24 008 262) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's consultation correspondence about closing a residential care home. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an Ombudsman investigation. West Sussex County Council (24 010 927) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint that the Council has refused to continue to fund her relative, Ms Y's current care placement. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. London Borough of Lambeth (24 014 012) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council placing her late relative, Mr Z, in accommodation that Mrs X says was unsuitable for Mr Z's needs. This is because it does not meet the tests set out in our Assessment Code. Mrs X has made her complaint late and an Ombudsman investigation is unlikely to add to the Council's investigation or achieve anything worthwhile. Medway Council (24 014 318) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the domiciliary care provided to her late father Mr Y by the care firm commissioned by the Council. There is insufficient significant injustice to Mrs X to warrant an investigation. Middlesbrough Borough Council (24 015 490) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint that the Council removed her mother's belongings from a property without giving Miss X notice. This is because any fault did not cause Miss X significant injustice. London Borough of Waltham Forest (24 016 795) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about damage caused to her property by works carried out via a Disabled Facilities Grant in 2008. It lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider it now. London Borough of Brent (24 000 504) Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of her son, Mr Y. She complained about the supported living placement, commissioned by the Council. Ms X complained about the lack of activities, lack of support with food preparation, laundry issues, stopping support services and delaying arranging benefits. She also complained she was banned from having contact with Mr Y. Ms X said Mr Y did not get the support he needed, and she put in time to ensure he got support. There was fault in the way the Council did not consider Mr Y's financial arrangements and delayed completing its complaint response. Ms X was put to time and trouble to complain. The Council should apologise, make a financial payment, remind its staff of the importance of effective complaint handling and complete a capacity assessment and best interests decision about Mr Y's finances. London Borough of Havering (24 006 516) Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's failure to act in line with the outcome of her occupational therapy assessment to install an electric shower and shower mixer tap attachment regarding her difficulties getting out of the bath. The Council determined a bath lift was more suitable for Ms X's needs. I have found no evidence of fault in how the Council reached this view. Nottinghamshire County Council (24 013 548) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's refusal to arrange care from her chosen provider. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Cornwall Council (24 013 659) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care arrangements. The court decided the dispute over what was best, and the Ombudsman cannot question or criticise the court's decision. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Council's actions and there is no worthwhile outcome from an Ombudsman investigation. Devon County Council (24 013 674) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about her relative's health needs. 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 solely about NHS health related matters, so we have no remit to investigate. Essex County Council (24 013 819) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council failed to explain how it calculated his care contribution increase. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Slough Borough Council (24 013 928) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council completed a financial assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Staffordshire County Council (24 015 391) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alledged failure by the Council to properly assess whether the complainant's therapy costs should be treated as disability related expenditure. This is because the complainant has not provided sufficient evidence to the Council to enable it make an evidence based decision. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. Southend-on-Sea City Council (23 008 265) Summary: Mrs X complained about the care provided to her mother, Mrs Y, by a Council-funded care home. These concerns were investigated by the Council during two safeguarding enquiries. We found the Council took too long to complete the first enquiry, leaving Mrs Y exposed to risk for longer than necessary. Many of Mrs X's concerns were substantiated by both enquiries, and so we found fault with the Council for delivering poor care. We also criticised the Council's complaint handling. We made recommendations to address the faults we found. Bondcare (London) Limited (24 000 374) Summary: Mrs Y complained about the care provided by Bondcare (London) Limited to her father, Mr Y. She also complained the Care Provider gave her misleading advice about the cost of his placement and how to apply for funding. We found fault by the Care Provider in some aspects of Mr Y's care. The Care Provider agreed to apologise and make a payment in recognition of the distress caused. Tenchley Manor Nursing Home (24 005 397) Summary: Mrs X complained about the standard of care her mother, Mrs Y, received from Tenchley Manor Nursing Home in July 2023. The care provider is at fault causing injustice. It accepted it failed to deliver consistent suitable care to Mrs Y. It has already apologised, offered to refund 50% of Mrs Y's care fees and amended its processes to learn from the complaint which is an appropriate remedy for the impact on Mrs Y. In addition, the care provider should make a payment to Mrs X to acknowledge the distress and time, and trouble caused to her by its failings. Westmorland and Furness Council (24 006 080) Summary: The Council acknowledged failings in the domiciliary care provided to Mrs Y during this investigation, but it failed to offer a remedy for the injustice caused. We have made recommendations to address this. Southend-on-Sea City Council (24 012 951) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information the Council prepared for Court of Protection proceedings about Mrs X's mother. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happened in court or any information a council has provided in proceedings. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (24 014 002) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the outcome of the occupational therapy assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Ms X also complains the Council shared her personal data without consent. It is reasonable to expect her to complain to the Information Commissioner on this point. Lincolnshire County Council (24 014 107) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint that the Council failed to tell her that her husband would need to pay a contribution towards the cost of his respite care. This is because the claimed fault has not caused any injustice. OM Care Ltd (24 005 636) Summary: Ms X complained about the Care Provider's standards of care for her family member, Mrs Y. I found the Care Provider failed to record and report injuries to Mrs Y and had poor communication with Ms X, which caused distress, risk of harm, and time and trouble. The Care Provider should make a symbolic payment to Ms X, reimburse her for damage caused to a table and change its procedures for quoting case costs to align with the law. Cornwall Council (24 008 647) Summary: Mr X complained the Council issued a bill for £13,000 in 2024 for his mother's unpaid care fees up to the point she passed away in 2020. Mr X says he was unaware he would need to pay any care fees until the Council contacted him. The Council made Mr X aware his mother would need to contribute towards her care fees in 2019. The Council is entitled to bill for the care fees as the fees are based on the financial information Mr X made available to the Council. We found fault with the Council for delays in contacting Mr X about the outstanding balance. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X, apply a reduction to the balance of £750 as a gesture of goodwill for the distress its delays caused Mr X and offer him a payment arrangement to repay the outstanding balance. The Council also agreed to reiterate to Mr X what financial information it needs from him to complete a review of the outstanding balance. London Borough of Lewisham (24 009 733) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decisions relating to Mr Y's care charges. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council's actions to warrant investigation. London Borough of Southwark (24 012 864) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the standard of care provided to his grandmother, Mrs Y, by Company Z, a Council commissioned care provider. The Council has investigated Mr X's concerns, upheld part of his complaint, apologised and taken action to improve practice in-house and with the care provider. We could not add to the Council's response or provide the outcome Mr X wants. Hampton (Midland Care) Ltd (24 012 914) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care home charges from 2021 to 2023. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. This is a late complaint with no good reason why the complainant did not raise it sooner. Luton Borough Council (24 014 114) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council initially refusing his blue badge renewal application, requiring medical evidence to support his appeal, or how it dealt with his application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's decision-making process to warrant us investigating and investigation would not achieve a different outcome. Cheshire East Council (24 002 296) Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not provided Adult Social Care support and not dealt with reports of anti-social behaviour. The Council is not at fault. Sheffield City Council (24 004 006) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to follow the correct procedures when it decided Mrs Y had deliberately deprived herself of assets. There was no fault in the way the Council reached its decision. London Borough of Waltham Forest (24 005 268) Summary: Ms B complained about the actions of the Council in respect of her mother's care needs before and after she was evicted, partly due to hoarding behaviour. We have found no fault. Kent County Council (23 009 285) Summary: Miss B complained that the Council failed to provide appropriate care and support for her over a number of years. We have not found fault with the Council's actions in respect of service provision. We have found fault with its complaint response but do not consider this has caused Miss B a significant injustice. Sanctuary Home Care Limited (23 017 352) Summary: There is evidence the care provider failed to record important information about the late Mrs X which might have led to quicker treatment of her fractured hip. Instead, care staff made incorrect assumptions about her symptoms. The care provider also failed to treat Mrs X with respect and dignity. It agrees to apologise to Mrs A, review its admissions processes and offer Mrs A a sum which reflects the distress and uncertainty it caused. Hampshire County Council (24 007 049) Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to promptly pay direct payments for care she received while she was abroad, and there was a delay in restarting her care package. We found there was no evidence the Council agreed to pay Direct Payments and this had since been remedied by a retrospective payment in any event. However, we found Miss X was avoidably left without care on her return from abroad due to Service Failure and Fault by the Council, so a payment should be made to recognise this. The Council should also provide better communication for service users about the correct process to follow in situation where care is to be suspended and restarted. Hampshire County Council (24 007 609) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the care her late mother Mrs Y received from a Council-commissioned care firm. There is insufficient significant injustice to Mrs X to warrant an investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome she seeks from her complaint. Salford City Council (24 008 261) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about her son's carers falling asleep during their night calls and about the Council's handling of her complaint. This is because an investigation would not lead to any further worthwhile outcomes. Somerset Council (24 011 653) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's handling of her late mother's care following hospital admission. The Council has investigated Mrs X's concerns, upheld parts of her complaint, apologised and taken action to improve. We could not add to the Council's response or make a finding of the kind Mrs X wants. Salford City Council (24 012 364) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about delays in the Council providing suitable equipment for her son and in completing an appropriate moving and handling risk assessment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, an investigation would not lead to any further worthwhile outcomes. Brighton & Hove City Council (24 013 115) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about threatening correspondence. The events happened more than 12 months ago and there are no grounds to consider the late complaint. The complainant does not have the relevant standing to make a complaint about an alleged debt due from an estate, as she is not administering the estate. Kent County Council (24 013 373) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the actions of a social worker and how the Council is meeting his care and support needs. It is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more. Salford City Council (24 013 415) Summary: We will not investigate X's complaint about her child's taxi transport. She says the drivers have not transported her child in a safe manner. This is because an investigation would not lead to any worthwhile outcomes as the Council has already provided an appropriate remedy. Northumberland County Council (24 013 583) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care support and safeguarding. This is a late complaint as the events happened more than 12 months ago and the complainant knew about them then. Kent County Council (24 013 815) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council billing her son Mr X for backdated care fees, the time taken before officers noticed the debt, officer comments during a telephone call, other administrative issues on the account, and the debt amount being sought. There is not enough evidence of Council fault which alters the care fee debt to warrant us investigating. The Council apologised for the officer's comments and investigation would achieve no different outcome. There is insufficient injustice caused by the administrative issues and the dispute about the debt amount to justify an investigation. Devon County Council (24 013 841) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council delaying in providing him with the financial information he requested regarding his mother in law's deferred payment agreement. This is because the accepted fault has not caused significant injustice. Warwickshire County Council (24 013 988) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a financial assessment for social care costs. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Somerset Care Limited (24 015 317) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about valuable items going missing in a care home. The courts are best placed to deal with negligence claims and claims for compensation. 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