Thursday, April 17, 2025

New adult social care complaint decisions

adult social care

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.


Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's safeguarding investigation into concerns about his mother and the Council's delay in providing an advocate for him. He said this caused him significant frustration, distress and uncertainty with his own vulnerabilities. We did not find the Council at fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the care provided to his mother by her care home and about the Council failing to communicate with him effectively. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the application process for a Blue Badge renewal. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the actions of one of the Care Provider's employees, This is because the matter complained about has not caused Mr X any significant personal injustice which is serious enough to warrant an investigation. Also a further investigation by this office could not add to the response the Care Provider has already given on the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care provided at home. The Care Provider failed to include the complainant in a care review of her relative, and there have been communication failures. There is no evidence this caused injustice to the person using the service, and the Care Provider has apologised to the complainant. It is unlikely we could add anything further.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with Mr Y's housing and care and support needs. We did not find fault with the actions of the Council's housing department. The Council's adult social care department was at fault for failing to complete a proper handover with another council area, insensitively communicating with Mr Y, failing to follow safeguarding procedures and poorly responding to complaints. This caused Mr X frustration and uncertainty and caused Mr Y distress and uncertainty. The Council will apologise for this.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint the Council has charged her late father for his care placement even though she was told the placement would be fully funded. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, any fault has not caused significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about how the Council has calculated Mr Y's care fee contribution without taking account of payments to his personal pension scheme. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's application of the relevant law and guidance to justify an investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council care charges billed to the complainant's late mother in 2022. The complainant disputes the care charges and says the Council has handled her concerns poorly which has caused her stress, time and trouble. However, the complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to exercise our discretion and accept this now. We therefore have no jurisdiction to investigate the issues raised.

Summary: Mrs Y complained that her late father, Mr W, experienced avoidable injuries during his short time at a Council commissioned residential care home. She also says that staff did not communicate with her properly about the incident and did not properly investigate. We find the home failed to properly assess Mr W's risks and at the frequency agreed in his care plan. Although we cannot say that Mr W's fall was preventable, the fault has caused uncertainty for which the Council should apologise and make a symbolic payment for. The home has already implemented some service improvements following Mrs Y's complaint.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly finance her mother's care when her funds fell below the financial threshold. The Council is at fault for mistakes made within the financial assessment and delay completing it. This caused financial and emotional distress.

Summary: Mr B complained that the Council stopped his care. The Council did not meet Mr B's needs and this was wrong. This meant he did not have the care he needed. The Council will say sorry to Mr B and make a payment to him.

Summary: Mrs Y complained on behalf of her father, Mr X. Mrs Y complained about how the Council handled Mr X's care contributions, requiring him to pay some legitimate bills from his personal expenses allowance. There were some faults by the Council which caused distress, confusion, raised expectations and frustration to Mrs Y. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council social care team has not supported her since the health service discharged her from hospital. Ms X said she has not had her needs met. The Council was not at fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint the Council failed to provide her with her mother's complete care records. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that his late father's care provider failed to raise invoices for care fees in a timely manner. This is because the likely fault has not caused any significant injustice.

Summary: Miss X complained that the Council had failed to comply with recommendations from previous case 23015944. She said the Council has failed to arrange a day to complete the core assessment to correct any inaccuracies. The Ombudsman does not find the Council to be at fault.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's decision making relating to Ms Y's care package and the resultant charges. This is because the substance of Mrs X's complaint has already been decided by a Court and the law prevents us from investigating in this instance.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's handling of her adult social care needs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: There was fault in the Council's communication with Mrs C on the care planning for her husband, Mr C. The Council also failed to properly respond to Mrs C's complaints and there was a delay in obtaining a letter which was needed for Mrs C to access her husband's assets. This caused distress to Mrs C and the Council has agreed to apologise, pay a symbolic financial remedy and implement a service improvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss B's complaint the Council failed to ensure her allegations about a Social Worker were considered fairly and thoroughly. Doing so would not be likely to lead to a substantially different outcome from that already achieved.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision that his mother Mrs X's monetary gifts to family members amounted to a deprivation of assets. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's decision-making process to warrant us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care provided on behalf of the Council. It is unlikely we could add to the care provider's investigation or reach a different or worthwhile outcome. We cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants as we cannot make findings of neglect or hold an organisation responsible for a death.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about matters arising from Ms X's concerns about the care provision to her relative, Mrs Y. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is too early for us to get involved as the safeguarding investigation has only just concluded and the complainant's remaining concerns are still being investigated.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council delayed in carrying out an agreed increase in her son's (Mr Y) care package and, despite accepting its fault, has failed to remedy the injustice this caused. The Council accepts it initially failed to respond properly to Ms X's complaint and that it delayed in carrying out the agreed increase in Mr Y's care package. It has offered to reduce an outstanding debt arising from the historic mismanagement of Mr Y's direct payments by £5,150, to remedy the injustice caused by having to provide extra support for him. The Council needs to pay £9,000 to the family (Ms X and Mr Y's siblings) and £150 directly to Ms X, without reducing the outstanding debt.

Summary: Dr Y complained the Council failed to provide services to her father in the weeks before he died. She says the lack of support from the Council caused him to suffer unnecessarily. Dr Y also complained about the communication the Council maintained with her family after her father's death, and its record keeping. We found fault with some actions of the Council. The Council apologised for this fault. This was an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council did not provide her with care and support that met her needs. She says this impacted her wellbeing. We find the Council at fault which caused Mrs X limited injustice. We also find fault with its handling of the complaints. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs X to acknowledge its poor complaint handling.

Summary: Miss B complained the Council did not respond when she asked it to change how she received care and support, so she could receive a direct payment to employ a personal assistant. We upheld her complaint, finding the Council failed to undertake a timely review of Miss B's care and support plan despite having several opportunities to do so. We also found when Miss B complained, the Council wrongly said she was not co-operative with her care. These faults resulted in Miss B not receiving care better suited to meet her needs and caused unnecessary distress. The Council has accepted these findings. To remedy Miss B's injustice, it has agreed to apologise, provide her with a symbolic payment and an updated care and support plan. It will also carry out a learning exercise to understand why it did not carry out the care and support review sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Care Provider refusing to give her a refund for her husband Mr X's respite stay which did not happen. There is not enough evidence that actions or inactions by the Care Provider caused injustice to Mr and Mrs X to warrant us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged delay in approving a disabled facilities grant for Miss X's child. The Council's offer from May 2024 to assess her child's needs rather than relying on assessments from 2022 or earlier means it is unlikely that an investigation would lead to a finding of fault in respect of that. Matters before 2024 are late and there is no good reason to investigate them now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a blue badge application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about being charged for social care services. 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 fault with the Council's actions taken after carrying out a financial assessment.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about the actions of the Care Provider's employee. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is not about actions that involve, or are connected to, the provision of adult social care.

 


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 GovDelivery logo

No comments:

Post a Comment