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. North Yorkshire Council (24 003 377) Summary: Miss X complains about the handling of her application for a disabled facilities grant. Miss X says it does not meet her child's needs, and the Council has refused to consider new information. We find fault with the Council for delaying confirming the funds, and for its complaint handling. The Council has agreed to pay Miss X a distress payment and carry out service improvements. Oxfordshire County Council (24 007 673) Summary: Miss X complained about the care the Council arranged for her brother, Mr Y and how the Council investigated safeguarding concerns about the Care Home. There was no fault in how the Care Home cared for Mr Y. There was some fault in how the Council carried out its safeguarding enquiries, but this did not affect the outcome. The Council has already taken steps to improve how it investigates safeguarding concerns. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (24 009 693) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's investigation into safeguarding concerns regarding his adult son Mr Y. The Council was at fault for the delay in completing the safeguarding investigation, for poor communication with Mr X and for not keeping Mr Y at the centre of the investigation. This meant Mr Y was stopped from visiting Mr X for longer than necessary and caused Mr X distress and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and make payments to Mr X and Mr Y. It has agreed to remind officers of the importance of effective communication in safeguarding investigations. London Borough of Croydon (24 012 215) Summary: Mr A complained about the way his aunt, Mrs B, was cared for after she left hospital. The organisations wanted her to go into a nursing home and made it difficult for her to return home. There were problems with communication and equipment delivery. We will not investigate this complaint because the Trust accepted it made mistakes and apologised to Mr A and has improved its service. We consider this to be a suitable remedy. Cheshire East Council (24 003 207) Summary: Mrs Y complained the Council failed to properly assess her mother, Mrs X's, care needs and finances in August 2022, and failed to then commission adequate care. She says the Council also over charged Mrs X for residential care. The Council failed to follow up on Mrs X's domiciliary care assessment and follow the proper process to charge a top up on Mrs X's residential care costs. The Council has offered a suitable payment for Mrs X's domiciliary care. It should apologise and make a payment to Mrs Y for the uncertainty caused. Norfolk County Council (24 004 051) Summary: Mrs X complains about the care provided to her late mother by the Council commissioned care provider, Guild healthcare Ltd. We find the Council was at fault. This caused significant distress to Mrs X. The Council has agreed to make several recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Agincare UK Limited (24 006 212) Summary: We upheld Mr X's complaint. Complaint handling was not in line with our expectations, record-keeping was poor and staff conduct in a meeting unprofessional. This caused avoidable distress. The Care Provider has accepted our recommendations for a further apology, a symbolic payment and actions for it to take to improve its service and minimise the chance of recurrence. London Borough of Lambeth (24 014 664) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of domiciliary care as we cannot add to the Council's investigation. Cera Care Operations Limited (24 016 392) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about his wife's care provider refusing to answer his messages and emails, and about the care provider changing his wife's care team and call times. This is because his complaint can be considered by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. London Borough of Ealing (23 020 398) Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council decided Ms B's care plan and its provision of care. Leicestershire County Council (24 001 615) Summary: We uphold Mrs X's complaint about the way her husband, Mr X, was discharged from hospital and the care he received in a care home. We found fault with how Leicestershire County Council and Leicestershire General Hospital NHS Trust discharged Mr X. We also found fault with some aspects of Mr X's care. As a result, Mr X did not always receive appropriate care and Mrs X was caused distress and uncertainty. The Council and the Trust will apologise to Mrs X and pay her a total of £400. The Council will also make some systemic improvements. We did not find fault with Queens Road Surgery. Norfolk County Council (24 008 978) Summary: Mr Y complains the Council did not inform him about possible charges it would make for his father's residential care following a hospital discharge. Mr Y says the Council issued an invoice for the charges before completing the assessment process. The Council has reviewed the case and decided to waive the outstanding care fees and make a payment of £400 in recognition of the avoidable distress caused by fault. This is an appropriate remedy, and we have not investigated the complaint further. Staffordshire County Council (24 009 081) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's delays and errors in calculating Mr X's contribution towards his care home charges and in sending an unexpected invoice for substantial arrears. We found the Council's significant delays in, and failure to advise Mrs X of, the financial assessment process are fault. This caused Mrs X unnecessary distress and concern and financial difficulties. To remedy this the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X and agreed an affordable repayment plan. Walter Manny Limited (24 010 322) Summary: The Care Provider adequately investigated Mrs X's complaint about the quality of care provided by a live-in-carer to her husband, before the complaint came to this office. A suitable remedy was provided. There is no more this office could add to this. London Borough of Merton (24 015 994) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council charging his grandmother for her care placement. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the claimed fault has not caused any significant injustice. London Borough of Harrow (24 016 316) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's decision that she is not eligible for a blue badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Liverpool City Council (24 016 507) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial assessment for adult social care charges, and the Council's decision about a deprivation of asset. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council's decision-making process or reach a different outcome. East Sussex County Council (24 017 458) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council charging for social care provided. A further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome. Cornwall Council (24 018 503) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council sharing her personal information with a third party without her consent. This is because complaints about data matters such as this are best considered by the Information Commissioner's Office. Eastwick Barn Limited (24 011 542) Summary: Ms W complained her mother's care home did not deduct NHS funding from the fees she paid. Based on current evidence, we have not found fault with the charges made. However, we consider the care home to be at fault as it has not shown that it provided Ms W with sufficient costs information. We have recommended the care home apologise to Ms W and make a payment in recognition of the injustice caused. London Borough of Merton (24 012 903) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about his mother's discharge from hospital to a care home because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement. We asked the Council to take steps to remedy the uncertainty caused by its lack of information about the cost of his mother's care and the avoidable time and trouble Mr X was put to trying to resolve the matter. It has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and take steps to improve its services. West Sussex County Council (24 013 557) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about an adult social care and financial assessment. Since making the complaint, the Council has met with Ms X, amended the assessment based on her comments and increased the amount of support she receives. There is insufficient evidence of fault or resulting significant injustice to justify our involvement. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (24 015 785) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's consideration of a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation. Any fault did not cause an injustice to Mr or Mrs X, and investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (24 016 389) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. It is unlikely we would add to the Council's investigation, find enough evidence of fault, or reach a different outcome. London Borough of Redbridge (24 016 711) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to reduce Mrs Y's care package. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making, and insufficient evidence of a significant injustice, to warrant investigation by us. London Borough of Islington (24 016 742) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's assessment of Mr X's mother. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and we could not achieve the outcome Mr X seeks. Southampton City Council (24 016 853) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about an adult social care assessment completed with her relative, Mr Y, in 2022 and charges for his care. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to investigate now. Surrey County Council (24 001 751) Summary: Mrs D complained the Council commissioned care provider (Crowthorne Care Surrey Ltd. t/a Esto Care) in her supported living placement, is failing to provide her with care and support. We found that support was provided in line with Mrs D's care and support plan and there was no fault in the Council's safeguarding process. However there had been medication errors and delay in complaint handling. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs D to remedy the distress caused. Lancashire County Council (24 004 712) Summary: Mrs X complained about the standard of care her mother (Mrs Y) received in a council commissioned residential care home. She also complained the Council delayed completing the subsequent safeguarding investigation. The Council was at fault as it took 6 months to complete the safeguarding investigation and found the Care Home failed carry out some of Mrs Y's care in line with her care plan. The Care Home also delayed making referrals on Mrs Y's behalf for her health. This has caused distress, frustration and uncertainty about the care Mrs Y was receiving. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the injustice caused. Athena Healthcare (Park Road) Limited (24 007 255) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider's response to a request for information and its response to Mr X's contact. The Information Commissioner's Office is best placed to deal with complaints about how organisations handle requests for information. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Care Provider in its related actions. North Northamptonshire Council (24 007 645) Summary: Mrs Y complains a care home wrongly charged her for her family member's respite stay. She says this caused her financial strain and avoidable and unnecessary distress. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault which caused injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs Y. Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (23 018 749) Summary: There was fault in the way the care home communicated with Mr B about the care it provided to his wife, its record keeping, and its care planning. This fault has caused distress and the Home has agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy and carry out a service improvement. London Borough of Sutton (24 009 298) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X complaint about the Council's action when discharging Ms Y from hospital and her charges for staying at a residential care home. Ms X is complaining too late and there are no good reasons for us to look at the matters now. Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (24 015 641) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint on behalf of her father, Mr Y, about his adult social care support package. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Council's actions Roseland Care Limited (24 016 009) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult residential care. The Care Provider failed to tell the resident's family about changes to medication and failed to keep all care records. The Care Provider has apologised, which is suitable action. The care home has closed and the complainant's relative no longer lives there, so there is no ongoing risk. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would achieve anything further by investigation. East Sussex County Council (24 016 414) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint the Council failed to support her with a grant for a new cooker. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (24 019 810) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's handling of contact arrangements with his daughter. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. Leicestershire County Council (24 013 530) Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not provide detailed information about the cost of his mother's care when the care was arranged, which meant the family were not able to make an informed choice about it. We asked the Council to remedy the injustice caused and it agree to apologise, make a symbolic payment to Mr X and to remind relevant staff of the importance of providing as much information possible about the likely costs of care when it is arranged. 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