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. Norwich City Council (24 007 080) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council has not dealt with her Disabled Facilities Grant properly. The Council is at fault because it did not communicate effectively and was not clear about the services it would provide. The Council has said it will make improvements to its service. Mrs X suffered uncertainty. The Council should apologise and pay Mrs X £100. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (24 016 874) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council completed a care needs assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Middlesbrough Borough Council (24 018 909) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint alleging carers failed to administer eye drops correctly that may have caused Mr Y's partial sight loss. This is because an investigation is unlikely to achieve a worthwhile outcome. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (24 020 664) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint the Council failed to safeguard him from abuse. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Leeds City Council (24 021 751) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision his mother, Mrs Y could return home with an increased care package in November 2023 and its discussion of finances when assessing her care needs. The complaint is late, and there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Staffordshire County Council (24 021 993) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about Staffordshire County Council, North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare NHS Trust and NHS Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Integrated Care Board. She says they ignored her views when it moved her brother, Mr Y, to a care home, which cannot meet his mental health needs. The matter has and still is being considered by the Court of Protection. The law will not allow us to consider a complaint where court action has started. Staffordshire County Council (24 001 803) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council placed Mr X in a care home a long distance from their home and it was difficult for her to visit. She also complained that when Mr X was moved to a closer home, his needs were not reviewed and problems with his catheter care continued. There is no evidence of fault on the part of the Council. The first placement was the only available option, and Mr X's catheter care was managed appropriately. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (24 015 669) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about an alleged failure to apply for NHS Continuing Health Care funding for his relative, Mr Y, in April 2022. An investigation would not achieve a worthwhile outcome or what Mr X wants. Norwich City Council (24 016 943) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's decision in relation to her request for major adaptations to her home via a Disabled Facilities Grant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. Lincolnshire County Council (24 017 294) 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. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (24 017 927) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council's decision to limit Mr X's participation in the co-production board. The Council has since met with and written to Mr X to resolve his ongoing concerns. Hertfordshire County Council (24 019 012) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about a care home commissioned by the Council to provide care to her late mother Ms Y and its complaint process. There would be no worthwhile outcome investigation of the complaint would achieve. Investigation by us would not add to the care firm's investigation nor achieve a different outcome. We do not investigate complaint-handling processes where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint. Worcestershire County Council (24 019 419) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council unlawfully detaining the complainant under the Mental Health Act 2005 on the basis of inaccurate and outdated information which breached data protection requirements. This is because the complainant had a right of appeal to challenge his detention to the Mental Health Review Tribunal which he could have reasonably exercised. The complainant could also reasonably complain about any data protection matters by complaining to the Information Commissioners' Office which is the most appropriate body for this. West Oxfordshire District Council (24 008 867) Summary: Miss B complained that the Council had failed to properly include her in the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) application process leading to a poorly finished outcome which differed from the approved plans and was unsafe. We found fault causing injustice to Miss B. The Council has agreed to apologise to her, pay her £500 and carry out a site visit to determine what outstanding works are required. It has also agreed to remind staff of the Council's responsibility to ensure the DFG work is completed in accordance with the approved plans and meets the applicant's needs. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (24 009 172) Summary: We have found fault with the Council for its poor communication with Mr X about his adult son's (Mr Y's) care contributions. This caused Mr X and his family avoidable distress. The Council agreed to remedy this injustice. Dorset Council (24 009 608) Summary: Mrs B complained the Council wrongly refused to award a 12 week property disregard when her mother moved into a care home and failed to properly assess her mother's needs properly. There is no fault in the Council's care assessment. The Council failed to follow statutory guidance when refusing to award a 12 week property disregard and failed to follow its own policy. That caused Mrs B distress. An apology, payment to Mrs B and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (24 009 635) Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's failure to backdate his personal budget to 8 April, when he moved out of the family home. The Council failed to consider exercising its discretion to allow Mr X to employ his mother as his personal assistant when he was still living with her. But this did not cause injustice to Mr X as there were other option open to him. Nevertheless, the Council has plans to take action which will ensure officers are aware of the scope to exercise the Council's discretion. Surrey County Council (24 011 852) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's alleged failure to pay a Care Provider for its resident's care. The courts are best placed to consider the matter. Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (24 018 159) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint the Council mismanaged her mother's finances when it was her appointee. The Police need to conclude their investigation into allegations of fraud at the Council before it can respond to Mrs X's concerns. Further investigation by the Ombudsman will not lead to a different outcome. London Borough of Croydon (24 018 607) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about funding for adult social care in a care home. The Council delayed deciding on ordinary residence. The Council has apologised and will improve future service, but the delay does not make the decision wrong. It is unlikely the Ombudsman could add to the Council's investigation or reach a different outcome. We cannot tell the Council it must provide funding. Dorset Council (24 018 662) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's application of the 12-week property disregard in Mrs Y's case. There is insufficient evidence of Mrs Y or her family having experienced a significant injustice. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (24 018 812) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about residential care commissioned by the Council and provided to her late mother Mrs Y. There would be no worthwhile outcome investigation of the complaint would achieve for Mrs Y. An investigation by us would not add to the care firm's investigation nor achieve a different outcome. Manchester City Council (24 019 477) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alledged failure by the Council in 2018 to provide the complainant with home adaptations and equipment. The complainant says these were essential to meeting her health needs. There is no practical prospect that we would be able to investigate the allegations given the allegations made are historical. London Borough of Lewisham (24 021 319) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a disabled persons freedom pass. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. London Borough of Croydon (24 015 863) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Ms Y's transition from children's to adult services. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason for us to investigate now. Cornwall Council (24 017 744) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council taking over funding for her late father's care fees without telling her. This is because the claimed fault has not caused any significant injustice. Bupa Care Homes (AKW) Limited (24 018 212) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about fee increases for privately arranged residential adult social care. This is because investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. On our ordinary reading the Care Provider has acted in line with its contract. A court would need to decide if the Care Provider has breached its contract or its terms are unfair. Essex County Council (24 005 941) Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council handled his application for a Blue Badge that delayed him receiving the Badge. We found that whilst it took many months to process Mr X's application, this was not because of fault by the Council. H I C A (24 011 015) Summary: Ms C complained on behalf of her mother, Mrs D that the Care Provider failed to provide sufficient recompense for the poor care Mrs D received while resident at one of its care homes. We found the Care Provider accepted the fault caused distress to Mrs D and provided a suitable remedy in line with our guidance. London Borough of Lewisham (24 013 580) Summary: Mrs Y complains on behalf of her husband, Mr Y, that he has not been awarded a blue badge. Mrs Y says the Council failed to fully consider the evidence before making its decision. Mrs Y says this has caused stress and frustration and has isolated and affected Mr Y physically and mentally. We have found no fault in the actions of the Council. Staffordshire County Council (24 002 444) Summary: Mr X complained the Council placed contact restrictions on his visits to his late partner, Mrs Y, who was living in a Council commissioned care home. The Council was at fault for not clearly explaining they were recommendations and the reasons for them. It has agreed to apologise to Mr X for the distress and frustration this caused and to review its procedures to prevent a recurrence of the fault. Mr X also complained the care home did not tell him his partner was put on end of life care when she was admitted to the care home. There was no fault as Mrs Y was not on end of life care when she moved into the care home. Mr X was made aware when she was nearing the end of her life. Liverpool City Council (24 018 215) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint that Council delays in resolving her relative, Mr Y's adult social care costs caused him to go into debt. The Council has waived significant outstanding costs to remedy any injustice caused by its delay and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Worcestershire County Council (24 018 230) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council and commissioned Care Provider causing a rift between her and her daughter. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Cambridgeshire County Council (24 019 834) 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. Kent County Council (24 005 179) Summary: Ms X complained about the standard of care her son (Mr Y) received between August 2023 and May 2024 in a Care Home which was council commissioned. She also complained the Council delayed completing the subsequent safeguarding investigation and failed to involve her in this process. The Council was at fault as the safeguarding investigation found the Care Home failed to provide Mr Y with a healthy diet and adequately record Mr Y's care. The investigation also found the Care Home made inappropriate comments after giving Mr Y first aid. The Council delayed completing the safeguarding investigation however it did involve Ms X throughout. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the injustice caused. 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 ·5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT