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. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 012 732) Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to deal properly with the charges for his care, resulting in it charging him more than he can afford to pay. The Council failed to explain why it accepted some of his car expenses as disability related expenditure but not others. The council needs to apologise and reconsider its decisions, providing reasons for them. London Borough of Lewisham (24 018 248) Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council-commissioned domiciliary care provided to Ms Y in October 2023. There is not a good reason for the delay in the matter being brought to us. Lincolnshire County Council (24 019 649) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care in a residential care home. This is because it is unlikely we would add to a safeguarding investigation already undertaken or achieve a different outcome. Nottingham City Council (24 019 916) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about supported living. Further investigation will not lead to a different outcome. Norfolk County Council (24 020 068) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's Blue Badge application process and its decision to refuse her application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's decision-making process to warrant us investigating. Way Ahead Community Services Ltd (24 020 086) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about charges for his father's care. The Care Provider has apologised and offered a partial refund, which is an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused. Further investigation by us could not add to this nor lead to a different outcome. The Council of St Monica Trust (24 020 317) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the standard of care her mother received just before she died. The Care Provider has investigated Mrs X's concerns, upheld parts of her complaint, apologised and taken action to improve. We could not add to the Care Provider's response by investigating the matter further. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (24 020 340) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial assessment for residential care fees. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. It reached its decision based on a financial assessment, which it reconsidered based on information from the complainant. There is no reason for the Ombudsman to question or criticise the Council's decision, even though the complainant disagrees. It is unlikely we would add to the Councils investigation or reach a different outcome. East Sussex County Council (25 001 616) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Y's complaint about the care her husband received at a care home. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise our discretion and investigate. East Sussex County Council (24 008 593) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council and its care provider, Voyage 1 Limited, failed to ensure her daughter, Ms Y, received all the one-to-one (1:1) support she had been assessed as needing, resulting in her lacking support with social activities and leading to her becoming withdrawn. The Council accepts Ms Y did not receive all her 1:1 support and has offered to pay financial redress for two and a half years. But, Ms Y did not receive all her 1:1 support for three and a half years from March 2021. This left Ms Y without the support she needed with personal care and limited, if not removed, opportunities for social activities. The Council needs to extend its offer of financial redress to cover the period from March 2020. Cornwall Council (24 016 160) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the care and support provided to her daughter, Miss Y, by Cornwall Council and Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust. This is because the courts are currently considering these matters. Ms X can return to us at the conclusion of the legal process if she remains dissatisfied and we will consider whether there is any further action for us to take. Devon County Council (24 018 589) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council refused to issue a blue badge. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Bedford Borough Council (24 018 675) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council failing to send her daughter invoices regarding her care contributions between April 2023 and January 2024. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Swindon Borough Council (24 019 645) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council failing to tell her of her son's requirement to contribute towards the cost of his care. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes. London Borough of Islington (24 018 850) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charges for residential care. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (24 019 124) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision his mother should remain in residential care. The Council investigated Mr X's concerns and apologised that communication with him and his brother was not better. We could not add to the Council's response by investigating. Herefordshire Council (24 019 583) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding. There is not enough evidence of fault in the process the Council followed to decide not to start a safeguarding enquiry. So, we cannot question or criticise it even though the complainant disagrees. It is unlikely we would add to the Council's complaint investigation or reach a different outcome. London Borough of Croydon (24 019 944) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about communication failures by the Council during a stressful adult social care case. The Council has apologised to the complainant and addressed the concerns with relevant staff to improve future service. We are satisfied with the actions already taken; it is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would add to this or achieve a different outcome. Birmingham City Council (24 020 042) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council not supporting him to move to another area as the complaint is late. Avery Homes WSM Limited (24 020 610) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the standard of care provided to her mother by the Care Provider. The Care Provider has investigated Mrs X's concerns, upheld parts of her complaint, apologised and taken action to improve. We could not add anything to the Care Provider's response or achieve the outcome Mrs X wants. Manchester City Council (24 002 841) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about care provided to her late father. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable through investigation. Further the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate it now. Manchester City Council (24 007 686) Summary: Ms B complained that the Council, in respect of her late uncle Mr D failed to provide adequate care for him at home, failed to respond appropriately to signs of his cognitive decline and failed to properly carry out a best interests decision in respect of his finances. We have not found fault in the Council's actions. Wakefield City Council (24 008 316) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly assess her mother before placing her in residential care, forced her mother into a second placement, delayed responding to safeguarding concerns, excluded Mrs X from meetings and failed to act on the concerns she raised. The Council failed to include relevant professionals in assessing Mrs Y, failed to involve Mrs X in meetings and failed to consider safeguarding concerns about the home properly. That has caused Mrs X distress and uncertainty. An apology, payment to Mrs X and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy. Southampton City Council (24 010 194) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's handling of her child's care and support when he turned 18. We find no fault in the Council's overall decision making but do find fault for it failing to consider Mrs X's request for an additional day at Placement A. This caused Mrs X uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X. Hampshire County Council (24 010 249) Summary: Ms D complained the Council sent her a bill for her late grandfather's (Mr X) care, eight months after he died and after his estate was distributed. Based on current evidence, the Council is at fault for poor communication which caused a delay in it being notified of Mr X's death. This caused Ms D emotional distress and will potentially cause her financial distress. I have recommended the Council asks Ms D for information about the debt and estate so it can reconsider the amount. I have also recommended the Council offers Ms D a payment plan for any remaining debt. London Borough of Haringey (24 019 569) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about poor communication and delay during an adult social care needs assessment. The Council has apologised to Ms X and acted to improve its service. An investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome. DES Healthcare Limited (24 019 577) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a care provider's decision not to offer a placement to a person. The provider has already given Mr X a response to his concerns, and it is unlikely further investigation by us would lead to a different outcome. Leicester City Council (24 021 028) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's refusal to award a Disabled Facilities Grant. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. Suffolk County Council (24 021 614) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's response to safeguarding referrals raised about her and about its decision to take her son's case to the Court of Protection. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council's decision not to consider her complaint whilst the case is subject to ongoing court proceedings. 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