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 Hillingdon (24 001 078) Summary: There is no evidence of fault on the part of the Council in completing the financial assessment. Mrs X did not want a commissioned care package in place before the financial assessment was completed. Direct Payments could not have been put in place before the financial assessment was compete. Cumberland Council (24 005 287) Summary: Mr X complained that the Council delayed in carrying out a financial assessment for his late mother, Mrs Y, and then issued a large, unexpected bill for backdated care costs. He also says the Council delayed in advising the family about benefits Mrs Y may have been able to claim and gave inadequate notice to end her placement at a care home. We found the Council was at fault. It has agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a payment to him in recognition of the distress, uncertainty and frustration caused. Buckinghamshire Council (24 007 591) Summary: We upheld a complaint from Miss J finding the Council at fault for delays and poor communication leaving her son, Mr K, without care for several months. This loss of care provision had a harmful impact on Mr K, as well as causing distress to Miss J. While the Council had previously acknowledged some fault and offered a remedy to the complaint, we did not consider this went far enough to remedy both Miss J and Mr K's injustice. So, the Council has now agreed to take further action, comprising an apology and symbolic payments for Mr K and Miss J, and a review of Mr K's care and support plan. It has also agreed to make service improvements for others to help prevent a repeat of the fault. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 011 622) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's delay in assessing Mr Y's adult social care needs and a delay in arranging funding after Mr Y's capital fell below the limit. This caused an injustice to Mr X who was put to avoidable time and trouble pursuing the Council and avoidable stress as the care home was pursuing him for outstanding costs in a period the Council should have been assisting financially. We asked the Council to remedy the injustice and it agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X, and by sharing the learning with relevant staff. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (24 013 874) Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's failure to respond to her safeguarding concerns about her late parent, Mr Y, who was living with another family member. We will not investigate. 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 so it is caught by the time bar on our jurisdiction. But even if we were to exercise discretion to investigate, it is unlikely we would be able to add anything more to the Council's investigation. Royal Borough of Greenwich (24 016 890) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council damaged his property during building work. This is because Mr X's complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion. Nottinghamshire County Council (24 017 350) 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. Bristol City Council (24 003 345) Summary: Ms X complains the Council has failed to meet her grandmother's needs properly since she left hospital in 2024. There is no evidence of fault by the Council. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (24 006 730) Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council's actions when Mr X sought to move his belongings out of storage in early 2023. There is not a good reason for the delay in Mr X bringing the matter to the Ombudsman. Durham County Council (24 007 054) Summary: Mrs F complained about the Council's actions in respect of the payment of fees for care in a residential care home for her father (Mr G). We found the Council failed to keep Mrs F informed of its actions and gave inaccurate information in its initial response. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment of £400 to Mrs F and to improve its procedures for the future. Westminster City Council (24 007 148) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the actions of staff at a day centre she attended. This is because an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes. In addition, we cannot achieve the outcome Miss X wants. Cambridgeshire County Council (24 007 851) Summary: Mr W complained the Council wrongly decided his mother, Mrs Y, deprived herself of assets to reduce her care fees. The Council was not at fault. London Borough of Waltham Forest (24 011 732) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's safeguarding investigation involving Ms X. The matters are closely related to ongoing court proceedings and the issues in dispute could be, or could have been raised in court. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (24 013 377) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's decision to end her friend's direct payments. This is because she is not a suitable representative to bring this complaint on her friend's behalf. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 014 327) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care at home. The care provider acting for the Council has apologised for the impact of its fault and acted to improve future service. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken, and it is unlikely we would add anything further. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 014 718) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay and communication failures in an adult safeguarding investigation. The Council has now completed the investigation and shared the findings. The Council has apologised for the impact of its fault and acted to improve future service. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken, and it is unlikely we would add anything further. North Lincolnshire Council (24 015 107) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the outcome of an adult social care assessment. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. London Borough of Harrow (24 017 071) 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. London Borough of Waltham Forest (23 020 327) Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of her late father Mr Y that the Council commissioned care home put in place one-to-one care and increased Mr Y's care fees without a review of his care needs or agreement from her or the Council, and evicted Mr Y from the care home for no reason. The Council was at fault for unclear communication on the change in Mr Y's care needs and did not communicate clearly the cost of Mr Y's care fees or Mr Y's move to a new care home. It will apologise and pay Ms X a symbolic payment to acknowledge the uncertainty and distress caused to her, ask the care home to revise Mr Y's invoices and put service improvements in place. London Borough of Merton (24 000 054) Summary: Mr F complained that the Council had failed to assess his social care needs since 2018 and failed to provide an independent advocate to support him since 2017. We found no fault in the advocacy offered by the Council or in its decision that it is not required to provide an advocate to assist someone to make a complaint. There was fault in not replying to an email but this did not cause significant injustice to Mr F. Southampton City Council (24 000 699) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage to Mr X's washing machine. This is because claims damages to property are for insurance companies or the courts to determine. It would be reasonable for Mr X to ask insurers or the court to consider his claim for damages and costs. Greensleeves Homes Trust (24 007 222) Summary: Mr X complained the Care Provider unfairly terminated his residency and failed to provide evidence of why it made the decision. We find the Care Providers actions caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty and distress which is fault. The Care Provider has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X, and make service improvements. Rectory Court Care Home Limited (24 013 204) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the care provided to her grandfather by his care home. This is because she is not a suitable representative to bring this complaint on her grandfather's behalf. London Borough of Lewisham (24 014 084) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint that the Council did not deal with her safeguarding concerns regarding her grandfather appropriately or in a timely manner. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. London Borough of Ealing (24 014 138) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing Mr X a blue badge. The Council reached its decision properly. Mr X's concerns about the time taken are not significant enough in themselves to warrant investigation. London Borough of Hackney (24 003 055) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint that her father's care provider failed to provide him with the care they were commissioned to provide and about the Council's poor communicate during its safeguarding enquiries. This is because the likely fault has not caused any injustice to Mr Z. In addition, there are no worthwhile outcomes achievable. West Sussex County Council (24 003 896) Summary: Mr B complained about the way an NHS Trust and Council assessed him to decide whether he should be detained under the Mental Health Act. He also complained about his care and support while he was waiting to be transferred to an in-patient "mental health bed". We found fault by both organisations. The Trust did not properly inform Mr B about his legal rights and status under the Mental Health Act. The Council did not ensure the medical recommendations remained valid when it reassessed Mr B under the Mental Health Act. These failings caused Mr B avoidable distress and upset. The organisations have agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy, and take actions to improve their services. Wokingham Borough Council (24 004 460) Summary: Ms Y complained the Council failed to provide her and Mrs X with information about possible charges for Mrs X's care at home, leading to a debt causing distress. We found evidence of some fault in the way the Council administered these matters, but these faults did not cause injustice to Mrs X or Ms Y. So, we have completed our investigation. London Borough of Bromley (24 007 353) Summary: Mrs T complains the Council charged her mother Mrs X for care at home for five days a week when she only received four days care. She also complained the Council failed to respond to her attempts to contact it. We consider the Council was at fault and it has already remedied the injustice it caused. Buckinghamshire Council (24 012 211) Summary: We have decided not to investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's poor communication and delay in resolving the funding for his mother, Mrs Y's residential care. We asked the Council to remedy the injustice by making an apology and payment to Mr X and taking steps to improve its services, and it has agreed to do so. Suffolk County Council (24 013 560) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charging for an adult social care respite stay. The Council told the complainant they may have to pay for the respite stay. So, the Council's delay in completing the financial assessment does not cause the claimed injustice. The Council has apologised for its delay and said the complainant can pay the debt in instalments. It is unlikely we would achieve anything further. Cambridgeshire County Council (24 013 633) Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about Mrs Y's care charges. There is not a good reason for the delay in Mr X bringing the complaint to us. The Hall Thornton Dale Limited (24 014 293) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about issues with her stay at The Hall care home. The Care Provider's actions or inactions did not cause sufficient significant personal injustice to warrant us investigating. An investigation would also be unlikely to achieve a different outcome. West Sussex County Council (24 014 299) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a Council decision that it no longer considers a person suitable to manage his relative's direct payment. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Derbyshire County Council (24 014 538) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault causing significant injustice to justify our involvement. There is no worthwhile outcome to be achieved from an Ombudsman investigation. Lakeshore Healthcare Limited (24 014 611) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint the Care Home made false allegations about her behaviour to the Council. The allegations were considered as part of court proceedings. Therefore, the law says we cannot investigate. Liverpool City Council (24 014 732) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint made by Mr X about care provided for the late Mrs Y. We could not now provide a remedy for any injustice for Mrs Y as she has died, and any injustice experienced by Mr X is not sufficient to warrant an investigation. London Borough of Enfield (24 014 878) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about its decisions concerning his relative's (Mr Y's) finances or its assessments about Mr Y's care and support needs. This is because it does not meet the tests set out in our Assessment Code. Mr X's complaints have been determined by the Court of Protection and we have no powers to investigate. Darlington Borough Council (24 018 421) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions in connection with Mr X's contact with his relative. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We are unlikely to find evidence of fault in the Council's response about Mr X being blocked from a social media application and the other issues Mr X raises happened too far back in time for the Ombudsman to investigate now. Sunningdale Care Limited (23 019 703) Summary: There is no evidence the care provider failed to provide a good standard of care appropriate to the late Mrs X's needs and therefore no reason why Mr A should not pay the full notice period. The Yews Residential Home (24 001 373) Summary: The complainant (Miss X) complained about the quality of care provided to her mother (Mrs Y) by The Yews Residential Care Home. We found The Yews Residential Care Home actions caused injustice to Mrs Y and Miss X. We recommend the care provider apologise, reduce the outstanding invoice for Mrs Y's residential care and make a symbolic payment to recognise Mrs Y's and Miss X's distress. We also recommend some service improvements in relation to keeping care and medication records and making Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (24 007 150) Summary: Ms X complained about the outcome of a Disabled Facilities Grant application for adaptations to meet her child's needs. The Council accepts it delayed in deciding the application and based its decision on inaccurate information. The Council has agreed to apologise, carry out a new assessment and make a payment to Ms X. Southampton City Council (24 010 501) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council officer asking Mr X a question which he found offensive and upsetting. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We are unlikely to be able to retrieve new evidence to add anything worthwhile to the investigation already carried out by the Council. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (24 012 800) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care support. The Council is still assessing the complainant's need for support so there is nothing further the Ombudsman could achieve. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (24 012 946) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision to suspend direct payments for his two adult children. The Council has thoroughly investigated Mr X's concerns and we could not add to its response or achieve the outcome he wants Wakefield City Council (24 013 322) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about an adult social care financial assessment and the Council's decision that his mother had deprived herself of assets to avoid care costs. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation and we cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X wants. Lincolnshire County Council (24 013 848) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council placed his mother into a care home against her wishes and that she did not receive the free six weeks of care she was entitled to. This is because the likely fault has not caused any injustice to Mrs Z. Further, the Council has appropriately remedied the injustice caused to Mr X and so an investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Leicester City Council (24 014 016) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint the Council has charged him the full cost of his care. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council completed the financial assessment to justify our involvement. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (24 014 447) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care services. The Council failed to invite the complainant to a best interests meeting; it has apologised and confirmed the actions it will take to improve future service. It is unlikely the Ombudsman could add to this investigation or reach a different outcome. The Court of Protection is better placed to consider a challenge to what is in the best interests of the person using the Council's service (the complainant's relative). Cornwall Council (24 014 463) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's delay in refunding his father's care fees. This is because the Council has already taken suitable action to resolve the matter. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (24 014 471) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council acted as a financial deputy. The substantive matters are outside our jurisdiction as they were subject to court proceedings. East Sussex County Council (24 014 484) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the care provided to her late mother Mrs Y at a home commissioned and part‑funded by the Council. There is insufficient injustice that we can now remedy to warrant us investigating. An investigation would not add to the safeguarding investigation or achieve a different outcome. We also cannot or would not achieve the outcome Mrs X seeks. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 014 521) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint the Council discriminated against her and unlawfully detained her. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and we cannot achieve the outcome she wants. There is no good reason why Ms X could not take the matter to court. Dorset Council (24 014 705) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about his father's assessed care charges. He says the disability related expenditure the Council has allowed do not reflect the actual costs incurred. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Leicester City Council (24 003 874) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's decision to increase the amount her mother, Mrs Y, has to pay towards the costs of her care and support. I find the Council at fault for how it calculated the amount which caused her distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and re-assess the weekly charge. West Sussex County Council (23 010 868) Summary: We upheld a complaint the Council gave wrong advice to a Care Provider supporting Mrs X's late husband who wanted to enter a residential detox placement. We found the Council wrongly advised he would not be eligible for financial support because he jointly owned a home with Mrs X. The result of this wrong advice is that it caused Mrs X distress, as she does not know if later events, including the death of her husband, may have been different. The Council has accepted these findings. At the end of this statement, we set out the action it has agreed to remedy that distress (and that caused by some poor complaint handling) and to improve its service. 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