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. Portsmouth City Council (24 009 729) Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council wrongly told her it would apply a mandatory property disregard and then wrongly refused a discretionary property disregard. The Council was at fault as it wrongly told Mrs X that it would award a mandatory property disregard. The Council was also at fault as it did not consider Mrs X's application for a discretionary property disregard in accordance with the Care and Support statutory guidance. These faults caused distress and uncertainty to Mrs X which the Council has agreed to remedy by apologising and making a symbolic payment of £400 to her. The Council will also consider Mrs X's application for a discretionary property disregard again. Warwickshire County Council (24 014 334) Summary: We will not investigate Mr & Mrs X's complaint about the Council's lack of care and support for Mr Y. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council's decision not to consider their complaint without Mr Y's consent. Nottingham City Council (24 014 805) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about adult social care provision. We have no powers to consider complaints where the complainant has started court action. Warwickshire County Council (24 015 099) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council gave him incorrect information during a telephone call. Mr X has been aware of the matters he complains about for over 12 months and he has provided no good reason why he did not complain earlier. Therefore, the complaint is late. Isle of Wight Council (24 015 179) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a care provider's unilateral decision to change the home care provider without any consultation with him. This is because the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. The Council has investigated and provided remedies for the care provider's actions. This is satisfactory and we are unlikely to add anything by investigating. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (24 015 344) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to remove transport to a day centre from an adult social care plan. The person using the service has died so we cannot consider the impact on them. We do not consider there is a significant enough injustice to the person complaining to justify an investigation. North Lincolnshire Council (24 000 521) Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to deal properly with his late wife's direct payments, by taking too long to audit them and then asking her estate to repay nearly £1,700. The Council failed to produce a detailed care and support plan in 2022. This resulted in a lack of clarity over what Mrs X's direct payments could be used for. The Council needs to apologise, reduce its claim on Mrs X's estate, pay Mr X for the distress caused and ensure officers improve their working practices. Leicester City Council (24 009 212) Summary: Mr X complained about flaws in the Council's assessment process when it was assessing his care and support needs. He says the Council's assessment form is too binary and oversimplifies complex and fluctuating needs. We do not find the Council was at fault. London Borough of Lewisham (24 009 746) Summary: We completed our investigation. The Council was at fault for failing to provide X with personal care at home, following their discharge from hospital. X suffered avoidable distress for one month. The Council will apologise to X, make a symbolic payment to them and review its procedures. Cambridgeshire County Council (24 010 059) Summary: We upheld Ms X's complaint about disability expenses for heating because the Council did not properly consider this by asking Ms X for additional evidence of expenditure. The Council will apologise and review the financial assessment. We did not uphold Ms X's complaint that the Council refused to cover the full cost of live-in care. This is because the Council is entitled under case law and paragraph 10.27 of Care and Support Statutory Guidance to have regard to its finances. Hartlepool Borough Council (24 014 434) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about her mother's care home and the way they handled her care before her death. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes. Somerset Council (23 013 202) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about provision of Autism specefic services. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Blackpool Borough Council (24 002 439) Summary: Mr X, complained on behalf of the late Mr Y about the Council's decision to include a gift to Mr Y's relative as notional capital when determining Mr Y's care contributions. Mr X also complained about the assessment process, including delays, inadequate communication and threatening recovery action for Mr Y's care fees. We have ended this investigation because a court has already made a judgment on the deprivation of assets issue and there is nothing worthwhile we can achieve by pursuing the other matters further. London Borough of Redbridge (24 003 489) Summary: Mr Y complains the Council handled Mr X's care poorly. He complains the Council did not confirm care home fees Mr X was liable for and delayed allocating him a social worker. We find the Council at fault which caused Mr X injustice. The Council has agreed to make a issue an amended invoice and take service improvement action. Devon County Council (24 008 482) Summary: Mr X complained the Council is failing to meet his night-time care and support needs. There is no fault in the way the Council assessed Mr X's care needs or proposed meeting these. Buckinghamshire Council (24 011 605) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council charging her for non-residential care. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Nottinghamshire County Council (24 012 782) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the handling of her mother' Mrs Y's, discharge from hospital in October 2022. This is because the complaint is late, and we have not seen a good reason to consider it now. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (24 013 447) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's handling of her care package. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice by apologising and taking action to provide Mrs X with the support agreed in her care plan. Further it will make a symbolic payment for the frustration, distress and uncertainty caused. Sanctuary Care Limited (24 014 734) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider's actions when Mr Y fell in the care home. The Care Provider has agreed to take early action to remedy the remaining injustice we would likely find if we investigated the matter. It will pay Mrs X £500 to recognise the family's distress and uncertainty, and it will issue a staff reminder about record-keeping. It is therefore not proportionate for us to investigate the matter further. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (23 012 532) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's failure to act when she made several safeguarding complaints regarding the care her son received. We found the Council was at fault for not updating Miss X with its decision. This caused her significant distress. To address this injustice caused by fault, the Council has agreed to make several recommendations to address this injustice caused by fault. Lancashire County Council (24 003 626) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to safeguard Miss Y from financial abuse, and a social worker inappropriately talked Miss Y out of appointing a Lasting Power of Attorney for her finances. Mrs X also complained Miss Y's care provider did not provide the support detailed in her care plan. We did not find fault in the support Miss Y received from her social worker and care provider. We discontinued our investigation into how the Council safeguarded Miss Y from financial abuse. Birmingham City Council (24 003 735) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's failure to provide care and support for her brother, Mr Y, over a prolonged period. We found the Council to be at fault. To remedy the personal injustice caused by this fault, we recommend the Council should apologise, make a symbolic payment to both Miss X and Mr Y and backdate the direct payment to the date of the initial assessment in October 2022. The Council should also take action to improve its service. Birmingham City Council (24 010 750) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council stopping her Direct Payment in 2021. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider it now. Nottinghamshire County Council (24 014 026) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care charges. It is unlikely we would add to the Council's investigation or reach a different outcome. Cumberland Council (24 014 412) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that he has been denied access to adult care support services due to discrimination. 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 the Council has acted with fault. Lincolnshire County Council (24 014 444) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how best to meet a person's adult social care needs. The Court of Protection is better placed to settle a dispute. Essex County Council (24 014 512) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the care provided to her father by his care home. This is because an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes. Cumberland Council (24 014 988) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's handling of an application for a disabled facilities grant for his child. The Council confirmed to Mr X it does not exclude non-visible disabilities from these applications, offered a fresh assessment of his child's needs and had given the family a high priority for a move to a larger property it could adapt. Investigation by us would be unlikely to achieve any more. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 015 519) Summary: There is no fault by the Council in the way it dealt with a safeguarding referral made by Mr X about carers incorrectly placing his leg in a wheelchair. There is also no fault in the way the Council responded to Mr X's complaint about the above. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (24 015 625) Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about delays in the Council issuing an invoice for care. There is not a good reason for the delay in Mrs X bringing the matter to the Ombudsman. Leicester City Council (23 021 403) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint from Mr X concerning his ex-girlfriend, Miss Y, not being allowed to see him. 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 decision not to investigate. Peterborough City Council (24 005 859) Summary: We have found fault by an NHS Trust, a Council and an NHS ICB for not allocating a care coordinator to someone who is entitled to one. The situation has caused avoidable uncertainty and distress. The organisations have agreed to provide an apology and small financial payments and to take steps to find a bespoke solution and work to resolve the wider issues. Warwickshire County Council (24 011 360) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint that the Council failed to tell her she would be charged for the care services she received. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Ms X. London Residential Healthcare Limited (24 013 836) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about charges for her mother's care. The Care Provider has apologised and provided a partial refund. A further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome. Leicester City Council (24 014 308) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint that the financial assessments completed by the Council failed to account for her daughter's high support needs. This is because her complaint is late and there are no good reasons to consider the late complaint. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault. London Borough of Bexley (24 015 723) 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. East Sussex County Council (24 016 683) 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. Liverpool City Council (24 019 378) Summary: We uphold Mrs X's complaint that Gainsborough House and Liverpool City Council provided inaccurate information about a change to her sister, Ms Y's, care funding. However, we did not find this caused a financial injustice to Ms Y. The Care Home and the Council will apologise to Mrs X for the confusion caused. We did not find fault with the actions of NHS Cheshire and Merseyside ICB. Middlesbrough Borough Council (23 013 918) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint that her mother was neglected by her care home. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint. City of York Council (23 019 266) Summary: There was a long delay in reviewing the care package for Mr X which essentially left Mr and Mrs A to manage the care themselves. Subsequently there was a significant delay in resolving the Direct Payments budget for Mr X which caused considerable anxiety to his parents, Mr and Mrs A. The Council has agreed to apologise, offer a sum in acknowledgement of the distress caused by its failings, and take action to resolve the outstanding issues. London and Manchester Healthcare Ltd (24 003 850) Summary: We uphold Mrs X's complaint that Gainsborough House and Liverpool City Council provided inaccurate information about a change to her sister, Ms Y's, care funding. However, we did not find this caused a financial injustice to Ms Y. The Care Home and the Council will apologise to Mrs X for the confusion caused. We did not find fault with the actions of NHS Cheshire and Merseyside ICB. 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