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. Christadelphian Care Homes (24 007 702) Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her father, Mr Y, about the care provider, Christadelphian Care Homes and how it calculated care charges. The Care Provider was at fault. It was not clear and transparent in how it calculated care fees and did not provide an adequate notice period before it changed the fees. This caused Mr Y and Mrs X frustration and uncertainty. The Care Provider has agreed to apologise to Mr Y and Mrs X. The Care Provider will also make service improvements to prevent a recurrence of fault. East Sussex County Council (24 014 879) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint the Council amended an Occupational Therapist's assessment without his agreement. There is nothing to suggest the Council's actions have caused a significant injustice. The Grange (Chertsey) 2002 Ltd. (24 016 920) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about privately arranged adult residential care. This is because it is unlikely we would add to investigations that have taken place, we cannot achieve the outcomes the complainant wants, and the court might be better placed to consider this complaint about negligence. Surrey County Council (24 017 206) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the way the Council arranged nursing home placements for her parents. The Council has investigated Miss X's concerns, upheld parts of her complaint, apologised and taken action to improve. We could not add to the Council's response or provide a different outcome to those already achieved. London Borough of Hackney (24 017 295) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint that the Council's actions forced her business to close, causing distress and financial loss. If Ms X considers the Council liable for economic losses, it is reasonable for Ms X to go to court. Warwickshire County Council (24 017 794) Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X's complaint about the care from the Care Provider commissioned by the Council for their late son Mr Y and the events prior to his death. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable from an investigation of Mr Y's care provision. Investigation of the Care Provider's actions or inactions in the period before Mr Y's death would not lead to a different outcome. London Borough of Lewisham (24 019 496) 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. Gloucestershire County Council (24 009 263) Summary: Ms X complained that the Council has refused to fund a residential placement out of area for her daughter, Miss Y. The Ombudsman does not find the Council to be at fault. Cheshire West & Chester Council (24 011 535) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about overcharging for care home fees because it is unlikely we could add to the Council's investigation. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (24 015 943) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's communication with Mrs X and her father's lack of progress in a rehabilitation placement. The Council has already apologised to Mrs X for issues with its communication and we would be unlikely to achieve anything further. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council's assessment of Mr X and the service he has received in his placement, to warrant investigation by the Ombudsman. New Forest Fritham Limited (24 016 028) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the care and support provided to her mother by her care home. This is because she is not a suitable representative to bring this complaint on her mother's behalf. Staffordshire County Council (24 017 138) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how best to meet adult social care needs. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's decision making, and the Council is rightly keeping the decision under review. The Ombudsman cannot achieve the wanted outcome of telling the Council how it must meet the person's needs. Liverpool City Council (24 017 301) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council. Staffordshire County Council (23 011 300) Summary: We have completed our investigation. The Council was at fault. It has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and recalculate the care fees owed. It will make a symbolic payment to Mrs X to recognise time, trouble and risk of harm. The Council will ensure its staff are aware of the relevant guidance that informs service users about the financial implications of care. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (23 020 218) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council's previous commissioned care provider regularly did not provide the care as set out in her daughter's care plan, causing frustration and decline in her daughter's health and wellbeing. We found some fault with the care provider. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice caused. Buckinghamshire Council (24 007 173) Summary: Ms A complained about the way the Council dealt with her request to move her father to a different care home. We found the Council is at fault and has caused an injustice as its delay caused avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms A and make service improvements to ensure the fault is not repeated. London Borough of Harrow (24 009 315) Summary: Mr X, complains on behalf of Mrs Y. He said the Council has failed to properly reach a decision to refuse Mrs Y's blue badge application. The Ombudsman does not find the Council to be at fault. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (24 011 133) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X complaint about the financial assessment the Council completed for her husband. She says the Council refused to allow some costs as disability related expenditure and refused to consider her husband's property related expenditure. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (24 012 047) Summary: Miss X complains about how the Council communicated with her while she was in a care home placement awaiting rehabilitation. We will not investigate this complaint because the Council has already acted to address any potential fault and we are unlikely to achieve more. East Sussex County Council (24 012 637) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Personal Expense Allowance because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision, so we cannot question the outcome. Liverpool City Council (24 014 533) Summary: We will not investigate Dr X's complaint that poor management of the supported living accommodation his son lives in led to his son incurring additional costs. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Anchor Hanover Group (24 015 904) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Home's handling of Mrs X's request for her late mother's care home records. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We do not have powers to compel the Care Home to provide Mrs X with the care home records, and, also, the Information Commissioner may be better placed to advise Mrs X. London Borough of Haringey (24 016 310) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council failed to send regular invoices detailing his mother's charges for her care placement. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, no significant injustice has been caused to justify an investigation. Runwood Homes Limited (24 017 120) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about privately arranged adult residential care. The main injustice would be to the resident, who has died and so we can provide them no remedy. While it is upsetting for the family, there is not a significant injustice to justify an Ombudsman investigation. Kent County Council (24 019 182) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council responded to a complaint about an officer. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the complainant could complain to the Information Commissioner. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (24 001 240) Summary: Mrs P complained on behalf of her father, Mr B, that the Council failed to involve herself and her father in his care planning. She says this meant his wishes were not considered. We have found the Council at fault for inaccuracies in its care records and for failing to follow its published complaints policy. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs P for failing to follow its published complaints policy. City of Doncaster Council (24 003 712) Summary: Mr Y complained the Council delayed carrying out a financial assessment, did not give clear information, and did not discuss Mrs X contributing to the cost of her care. We found the Council at fault for delays completing Mrs X's financial assessment and for failing to send clear written information about charging and the assessment process at the relevant time. The Council agreed to provide Mrs X's family a symbolic financial remedy for the frustration and distress this caused. Dorset Council (24 007 557) Summary: Mrs B complained about the Council's poor communication, a delay in taking actions and a failure to carry out a continuing healthcare checklist. We have found fault in the Council's actions and the Council has agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy and carry out the checklist. Kent County Council (24 007 826) Summary: The Council failed to properly investigate Mr X's complaint about the domiciliary care his mother received. It then delayed dealing with his complaint about this. This caused both Mr X and his mother unnecessary worry and stress. The Council has agreed a satisfactory remedy in acknowledgement of this. Suffolk County Council (24 008 529) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council failure to advise her about her obligations under the direct payments scheme. We did not find the Council to be at fault because Mrs X signed an agreement that explained her responsibilities as an employer and to provide an audit trail. In the absence of any evidence to show how public finds were spent, the Council was entitled to request its return. Broxtowe Borough Council (24 011 362) Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council handled her housing case and how it delayed a disabled facilities grant process to carry out adaptations at their property for her late mother. Ms X also complained about the Council's poor communication with her. There was fault by the Council for its failure to provide Ms X with information about the disabled facilities grant process which caused uncertainty to Ms X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused. Cornwall Council (24 015 184) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council deciding her mother Ms Y owns a property so can contribute to her care fees, and it not properly considering evidence Mrs X provided to challenge the decision. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant us investigating. London Borough of Haringey (24 015 857) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint that the Council failed to complete timely carer's assessments and communicate effectively. This is because we could not add to the Council's investigation. City of Doncaster Council (24 017 465) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Councils handling of her direct payments. Any injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement. Bath and North East Somerset Council (24 017 522) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's decision to withdraw her direct payments. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Leicester City Council (24 017 673) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about disputed care and support invoices issued by the Council. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons why we should exercise our discretion and investigate despite the passage of time. Essex County Council (24 018 368) Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of Ms Y. She complained the Council did not complete the actions from a previous Ombudsman investigation. We have discontinued our investigation because the Council has evidenced it completed the actions. The issue with this matter is the explanation and communication from the Council. This is outside the scope of the original investigation and the Council should have the opportunity to consider this complaint. Norfolk County Council (24 018 431) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about payments given to a carer under duress. This is because we could not add to the response the Council has already provided explaining this is a private matter and that an allegation of crime is best investigated by the police. Cambridgeshire County Council (24 011 477) Summary: Mrs X complains about the care provided by the Council to her father, Mr Y, when he was at a care home. She considers the failings contributed to a decline in his health and the need to return to hospital. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the failings have already been accepted and action taken to remedy the injustice. Lancashire County Council (24 012 216) Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed reviewing Mr Z's short break provision. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by offering to make a suitable payment to the complainant to remedy the injustice this caused. Bristol City Council (24 016 475) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X's finances being affected adversely due to the Council's failure to act on his request for a carer's assessment. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is no evidence of a causal link between the Council's admitted fault and Mr X's finances. West Berkshire Council (24 017 043) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care provision at home. The events complained about have been known to the complainant for over 12 months before raising the complaint with the Ombudsman. This is a late complaint and there is no good reason to exercise discretion and consider it now. Gloucestershire County Council (24 007 998) Summary: Mr W, on behalf of the family, complained the Council failed to assess Mr X's capacity or consult his parents before deciding to extend his respite stay. Mr W also complained about delays and lack of action in response to safeguarding concerns. We find the Council at fault for delay informing the family of the safeguarding outcome, which caused uncertainty. The Council has agreed to issue an apology. North Somerset Council (24 013 573) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's handling of her father's care and support. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. 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