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 Hackney (24 003 887)

Summary: Mrs D complained the Council refused to renew her Blue Badge. Our investigation has found fault in the advice given to staff who work at the Council's assessment centre and assess Blue Badge applications.

Staffordshire County Council (24 000 363)

Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it has considered Ms A's disability related expenditure and financial contribution for her care.

London Borough of Havering (24 003 386)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council and its commissioned care provider failed to deliver proper care and support for her relative's needs or finances before they passed away, affecting their wellbeing. The Council accepted fault and waived half of the outstanding care fees. The Council agreed to our additional recommendations to apologise to Mrs X and make a symbolic payment to recognise her outstanding injustice of frustration and uncertainty.

Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (24 005 725)

Summary: There was no fault in the Council's decision that Mr Y's needs can be met in a shared supported living arrangement. The Council reviewed Mr Y's care and support plan and provided funding and services to meet his needs while a long-term project is being built. And if the project falls through, the Council has told Mr Y's family that it will commission a placement out of borough. This was in line with the duty to meet Mr Y's eligible needs.

East Sussex County Council (24 006 248)

Summary: Ms A complained the Council reduced the number of hours of care it pays for without explaining this to her. She says her needs had not changed so she does not understand the cut. The Council is not at fault, as it has made a decision it is entitled to make.

WCG Riverside Care Home Limited (24 007 541)

Summary: Miss X complained about the quality of care provided to her mother at the care home. There were some faults with the care provided as the care provider failed to change Mrs Y's bedding, left a dirty pad in Mrs Y's room, did not always record when it checked Mrs Y's incontinence pad and fingernails, and it did not complete a choking risk assessment despite Mrs Y's tendency to put things in her mouth. It also failed to fully follow its complaints procedure. The care provider has already taken action to address the faults with the quality of care. It should apologise and make a payment to Miss X to acknowledge the frustration and uncertainty she was caused. It should also remind staff to respond in writing to formal complaints.

London Borough of Haringey (24 008 874)

Summary: Mrs Z complained about the Council's failure to ensure Mr X had somebody to take decisions about his welfare and finances. We found fault with the Council for delaying a Mental Capacity assessment for the complainant (Mr X) and for not acting to appoint a person who could take decisions about Mr X's welfare and finances. The Council's failings caused injustice to Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X, to apply for the appointment of a deputy and to carry out some service improvements.

East Riding of Yorkshire Council (24 013 761)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. We are satisfied with the Council's investigation and proposed actions in response to the complaint. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything significantly different, so an investigation is not justified.

West Sussex County Council (24 014 393)

Summary: We have upheld Ms X's complaint about the Council's decision to charge her late mother for care. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Kingsley Healthcare (Birmingham) Limited (24 014 535)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a care provider allegedly failing to meet the complainant's mother's care needs while in residential care. The complainant says her mother was neglected and that her weight declined significantly leading to her being admitted to hospital where she later died. There is insufficient evidence of any of the care provider's action falling short of the CQC's Fundamental Standards for care, or Mrs Z being caused an injustice.

Birmingham City Council (24 015 748)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council and the Care Provider it commissioned when Mr Y returned home from hospital with a package of care. We could not achieve a meaningful outcome by investigating the matter further.

London Borough of Haringey (24 018 643)

Summary: Mrs Z complained about the Council's failure to communicate with Miss Y as a manager of the agency providing care to Mr X and to keep to its commitments. We found fault with the Council for its unsatisfactory communication with Miss Y and for its failing to keep to its commitments. The Council's fault caused injustice to Miss Y. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss Y and to refund the money paid by the care agency towards Mr X's expenses.

East Sussex County Council (24 003 412)

Summary: We found no fault with the support provided to Mrs Y by a Council following her discharge from hospital. Nor did we find any fault with the information provided to Mrs Y's family regarding charging arrangements for her care. We found fault with a Trust's failure to refer Mrs Y for rehabilitation at the point of discharge. This delayed her access to therapy. The Trust will apologise and pay a financial remedy.

Blackburn with Darwen Council (24 003 446)

Summary: Miss X complained about the quality of care provided to her late father, Mr Y, at a residential placement commissioned by the Council at Dovehaven Lodge care home in Preston. There was fault by the Council which caused avoidable distress to Mr Y's family. The Council agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy. It will also work with the Care Provider and its relevant host authority to produce a dated action plan to address the faults identified with delivery of care.

London Borough of Islington (24 006 441)

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council and its care provider, MiHomecare Islington, failed to provide her late father with the support he needed. The Council accepts it failed to review her father's needs for two and a half years. It also accepts MiHomecare was not cleaning the bathroom to the expected standard. MiHomecare's care plan did not reflect all the needs the Council had identified. This put Mrs X's father at risk of harm. The Council needs to apologise to Mrs X and provide evidence it and MiHomecare have improved their working practices.

Birmingham City Council (24 007 865)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to organise care to enable her to take part in her education. She says despite the Council agreeing she required care out of the home, it refused to provide this. Miss X says this meant she struggled to study and get to university lectures, she suffered significant distress which impacted on her ability to eat properly, her health and her education. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for delaying in completing an assessment of Miss X and its failure to respond to her. The Council has agreed to issue an apology, pay Miss X a financial payment and complete service improvements.

London Borough of Lewisham (24 014 827)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council failing to provide her son with appropriate support. This is because her complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint. In addition, some of her complaints are premature to us.

London Borough of Bromley (24 015 347)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to provide the complainant with safeguarding and social care support. This is because the Council has agreed to resist the issues and conduct another assessment with Ms Q which it will use to inform what action to take going forward. It is unlikely that further investigation of the issues would lead to a different outcome.

Telford & Wrekin Council (24 015 585)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult care services. The Council has completed a thorough investigation, accepted some fault and said what it will do in response. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would add to that. The complainant says the Council has not done what it said it would, this is a new issue of complaint which the Council must first have the opportunity to consider.

Buckland Care Limited (24 015 956)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Care Provider's actions in response to her late mother Mrs Y's condition while at the care home. There is not enough evidence the care home's actions caused injustice or amounted to fault to warrant us investigating.

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (24 017 321)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint. This is because, in relation to some parts of the complaint, an investigation would be unlikely to achieve the outcomes Miss X is seeking. The other parts of the complaint are not ready for our consideration as work is ongoing locally to review Miss X's care and support needs.

Coventry City Council (24 004 090)

Summary: Ms X complained about failings by the Council's Adult Social Care service to support both her and her adult son, Mr Y. We found the Council at fault for failing to follow-up on respite care, and for failing to properly consider what support it could offer when Mr Y's behaviour escalated. The Council agreed to provide a symbolic financial remedy for the distress this caused. The Council was also at fault over the advice it gave on emergency accommodation, but this did not cause significant injustice.

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 009 886)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X's complaint about the way Mrs X's brother, Mr Y, was discharged from hospital by Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council. The Trust has already accepted some errors and taken appropriate steps to put things right. Further investigation by the Ombudsmen is unlikely to add to the Trust's investigation.

Southampton City Council (24 014 955)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's handling of safeguarding concerns relating to her mother, Mrs Y. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Birmingham City Council (24 015 660)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint the Council has incorrectly reduced the disability related expenses allowed in his brother's financial assessment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

London Borough of Croydon (24 016 203)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's failure to investigate her safeguarding complaints in full. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. Mrs X has made her complaint late outside of our usual 12 month time limit for accepting complaints. I see no good reason for us to investigate now.

East Sussex County Council (23 012 153)

Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it managed Mr X's domiciliary care provision, or his complaints about this.

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 001 193)

Summary: Mrs X complained about the care provided to her late husband, Mr Y, at the Council commissioned care home. There was fault in the care home's failure to ensure Mr Y's medication was reviewed when he struggled with swallowing. It has already apologised for the uncertainty this caused. It also failed to ensure it kept all Mr Y's records. The Council has agreed to ensure the care home has taken action to prevent a recurrence of these faults. There was no fault in the way the Council identified the placement or charged Mr Y for his care.

Grey Gables (New Milton) Ltd (24 001 663)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about a care provider refusing to provide a copy of her mother in law's contract and care invoices. This is because there is another body better placed to consider the complaint.

Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (24 002 363)

Summary: Mr C complains about delays in adaptations for his father, Mr D. The Council is at fault for failing to properly approve a grant application and in its communication with Mr C. This has resulted in delays in Mr D's adaptations, and caused Mr C frustration, time and trouble. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to make an apology, symbolic financial payment and service improvements.

London Borough of Islington (24 004 400)

Summary: Ms X complained a care home commissioned by the Council failed to provide her relative Mr Y with adequate personal hygiene care or change his sheets. She also complained it failed to take appropriate action when Mr Y had bruising and a scratch. We upheld the complaint. Care was not person-centred or dignified and the care home did not maintain adequate records. This caused avoidable distress. The Council will make a symbolic payment, issue an apology and a written reminder to staff in the complaints team about the wording of the Council's complaint policy.

Birmingham City Council (24 008 625)

Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it conducted assessments of Mr Y care and accommodation needs, and his capacity to decide about contact with Mr X.

Lancashire County Council (24 009 282)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council stopped communicating with him in relation to his late aunt, Ms Y, without explaining its reasons why. The Council was at fault. It did not write to Mr X and tell him it would communicate with him via email. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X for the frustration and uncertainty it caused him.

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (24 010 401)

Summary: We have not found fault in Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council's decision to charge Mr X a contribution toward the cost of his care after he left hospital. There is evidence that professionals from the Council and the NHS were transparent about the possible charges.

Staffordshire County Council (24 011 786)

Summary: The Council failed to properly consider the impact of Mrs X's medical conditions when assessing her application for a blue badge

London Borough of Ealing (24 013 476)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a former employee of a Council-commissioned service. Complaints about their actions while employed by the Service are late and there is not a good reason for Mr X's delay in bringing them to us. Events after the person left employment by the Service are not an administrative function of the Council, and we have no power to investigate them. In any event, we could not say any fault by the Service caused the injustice Mr X alleges.

Hartlepool Borough Council (24 013 899)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's handling of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) assessments for his mother, Mrs Y. This is because further investigation could not add to the Council's complaint responses nor can we achieve anything further for Mr X or Mrs Y.

Keychange Charity (24 014 283)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Care Home's failure to take appropriate action when Mr Y had a medical emergency. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (24 015 595)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council damaged his property during building works to adapt it to meet his disabilities. This is because the courts are better placed to investigate any liability claims.

Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (24 019 639)

Westminster City Council (24 019 640)

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (24 012 658)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision that the transfer of his mother's property to him and his brother, was deprivation of assets to avoid paying for residential care. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

West Sussex County Council (24 013 696)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's decision that her father's gift towards her current property amounted to a deprivation of assets. This is because there was insufficient evidence of fault to warrant further investigation.

Isle of Wight Council (24 014 316)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the outcome of an adult social care assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Carebase (24 014 397)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about quality of the care provided to his mother during her stay at a care home. This is because the care provider has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Derbyshire County Council (24 014 421)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint the Councils refused to consider new complaints from her. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Dorset Council (24 015 564)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's responses to Mr X's concerns about his sibling's role as an attorney for his parent. 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 recent actions and we will not investigate historic matters as these are caught by the time bar on the Ombudsman's powers.

Harmony Care and Personal Services (24 015 152)

Summary: Mr X complains about the quality of domiciliary care provided to his late relative, Mr Y, in 2023. 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 and there are no good reasons to investigate.


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

Food Blog

Thursday, April 10, 2025

New adult social care complaint decisions

A weekly update on adult social care complaint decisions

No comments:

Post a Comment