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. Middlesbrough Borough Council (24 010 390) Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed in its safeguarding duties towards him. We did not find fault with the Council's actions. London Borough of Croydon (24 015 215) Summary: Ms X complained the Council was incorrectly taking into account the cost of her adult son's residential college placement in the way it calculated his contribution to his care charges. We have ended our investigation. Mr Y's financial contribution is calculated as zero, so the injustice is not significant enough to warrant any further investigation. West Sussex County Council (24 017 091) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to safeguarding and other actions relating to Mrs X's mental capacity assessment. This is because we do not have consent from Mrs X to investigate, and nor do we believe Mrs Y can make a complaint about these actions, on Mrs X's behalf, as her representative. Kent County Council (24 018 700) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement in Mr X's case. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council as it has not had involvement with Mr X since 2019. Events from the period when it was involved are too late for us to investigate. Surrey County Council (24 019 870) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions relating to Mrs X's mental capacity. This is because we do not have consent from Mrs X to investigate, and nor do we believe Mrs Y can make a complaint about these actions, on Mrs X's behalf as her representative. Liverpool City Council (24 020 792) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Council completing Mrs Y's financial assessment. The Council has apologised for frustration the delay caused the family. We could not say delays caused a quantifiable financial injustice so we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks. There is insufficient evidence of fault in other elements of the complaint to warrant investigation. Devon County Council (24 021 239) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to halve the complainant's care package to four hours of support. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Durham County Council (25 000 571) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handed Miss X's report of her broken door. This is because we could not achieve anything significantly more. London Borough of Haringey (24 013 161) Summary: Mr J complained about the way the Council cleaned his property and dealt with his belongings. We found fault in record keeping but this did not cause significant injustice to Mr J. There was no fault by the Council in the other parts of the complaint. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (24 013 694) Summary: A complained about the way the Council dealt with their request for adult social care. They also complained the Council sent an incorrect invoice for care which was never received. Based on current evidence, we found the Council is not at fault. London Borough of Ealing (24 015 556) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a social worker. That is because the complaint is late. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (24 019 347) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about behaviour when collecting telecare equipment, because the Council is not responsible for the issues raised. The body that is responsible is not in our powers to investigate. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (24 008 017) Summary: We will not investigate this about how the Council has carried out a financial assessment to determine the complainant's contribution charges for care. This is there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. Durham County Council (24 009 519) Summary: Ms D complained the Council ignored her requests to discuss her mother's (Ms M's) return home after being told she needed to be in a care home. This caused Ms D and her mother emotional distress and potential financial distress for Ms M. The Council is at fault for poor communication and failing to proactively manage Ms M's assessment. This has caused Ms M and Ms D distress. I have recommended a package of remedies. Staffordshire County Council (24 013 503) Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to deal properly with the charges for his son's care. The Council accepts there was a long delay in completing the son's financial assessment and has written off some of the charges. There is no other evidence of fault by the Council. Nottingham City Council (24 020 398) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about a Council Officer making a referral to Children's Social Care. Here is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Norfolk County Council (24 020 651) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charging for residential adult social care. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council charging for care which Ms C received and was told she would need to pay for. The delay in billing does not mean the charges are not due. There is not a significant enough injustice caused by delays to justify an Ombudsman investigation. Alliance Community Home Care Ltd (24 020 788) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an information request and other matters. The Information Commissioner's Office is best placed to consider complaints about how organisations handle people's data. Complaints about the Care Provider's decision to recover unpaid care charges are being considered by the courts, and the Care Provider has not yet had the opportunity to consider complaints about the quality of Mrs Y's care. Northumberland County Council (24 020 878) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the quality of works funded by a disabled facilities grant. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise our discretion and investigate. Wiltshire Council (24 021 168) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X's needs not being met as a carer. This is because the Council have already agreed to a reassessment so an investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Derbyshire County Council (24 021 634) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's reduction of an adult social care personal budget. The Council followed a proper process of assessment, completed by a suitable member of staff, to decide how to meet the complainant's needs. There is not enough evidence of fault, and no reason for the Ombudsman to question or criticise the Council's decision, even though the complainant strongly disagrees with it. London Borough of Bromley (24 023 017) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an application for a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Buckinghamshire Council (24 008 864) Summary: Mr X complained the Council charged the late Mrs Y for respite care after telling the family it would be free. He also complained Mrs Y spent longer than planned in respite care due to the Council's poor communication and management of the case. This caused the family distress. We found the Council at fault for failing to provide clear and timely information about charges for Mrs Y's respite care. But we did not find the Council at fault over the time Mrs Y spent in respite. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment for the distress caused. London Borough of Islington (24 009 098) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to prepare to transition her son, Mr Y, to adulthood, caused distress to him, and caused delays in assessing him for a care plan. There was fault by the Council. It delayed completing Mr Y's care assessment and did not consider taking a different approach in completing the assessment when it considered Mr Y was not engaging with it. It also did not keep Mr Y and Ms X informed throughout the process, and wrongly closed Mr Y's referral to mental health services. Because of the fault, Mr Y and Ms X suffered distress and uncertainty, and there was a delay in Mr Y receiving mental health support. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr Y and Ms X, make a symbolic payment to Mr Y, and issue staff briefings. Nottinghamshire County Council (24 010 840) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's role in supporting her late mother Mrs Y to move from a care home to live with her in another council's area. The Council was at fault for poor communication and delay. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X to acknowledge the frustration and distress she was caused and pay some of the care fees for the extra weeks Mrs Y remained in the care home due to the Council's delays and poor communication. Worcestershire County Council (24 011 770) Summary: Mr Y complained the Council failed to ensure Mr X's care provider assigned regular drivers for his mobility car, delayed providing Mr X with medication, failed to ensure Mr X received appropriate personal care, delayed arranging a repair of Mr X's toilet, allowed the care provider to slander him and delayed considering his complaint. There is some evidence Mr X missed out on access to the community, of missed medication, of inadequate records of bathing and of delay responding to the complaint. An apology, payment to Mr X and Mr Y, alongside procedural remedies, is satisfactory remedy. Hanumaan Limited (24 016 315) Summary: Mrs X complained the care home told her that her late mother Mrs Y could not leave until she was authorised to do so by the Council. There is no evidence the care home prevented Mrs Y from leaving. It delayed billing Mrs X for Mrs Y's care but this delay was not due to fault by the care home. Birmingham City Council (25 001 009) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council not supporting him because there is not enough evidence of fault or significant injustice. City of Doncaster Council (24 021 463) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a financial assessment in 2023 and that the Council has refused to explain why he was not charged for care between 2018 and 2023. Part of the complaint is late and there is insufficient injustice to warrant an investigation. Buckinghamshire Council (24 021 677) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint that the Council's actions jeopardised her business, caused distress and financial loss. The law prevents us from investigating matters that have been taken to Court. Hexagon Care Services Limited (24 021 912) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of carers working at a children's residential accommodation neighbouring Mr X's property. While the Care Provider is registered to provide adult social care in other locations, the location in question provides care to children. We do not have the power to investigate this complaint. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (24 004 827) Summary: Ms D complained the Council failed to carry out an occupational therapy assessment when her son, Mr J, transferred from children's to adult's social care services. We have found the Council significantly delayed completing an occupational therapy assessment. This delay caused Ms D avoidable frustration, uncertainty and distress. It affected the housing priority afforded to the household, creating significant uncertainty about whether Ms D missed suitable housing opportunities. The delay also means the household will live in accommodation that poses risks to their wellbeing for longer than they otherwise would have. The Council agreed to apologise and backdate Ms D's housing priority to the point Mr J transitioned to adult care services. The Council agreed to pay a financial remedy in recognition of the avoidable distress and risk of harm caused by the delay. The Council also agreed to review the case with senior officers and write to Ms D to set out its proposal for making a direct offer of suitable accommodation. Nottinghamshire County Council (24 019 027) Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X's complaint about the Council's decision to remove Mrs X as their son's financial appointee. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Kent County Council (24 019 822) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council pursing him for his late father's care debt. This is because an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes as the Council has offered a suitable remedy. Bupa Care Homes (AKW) Limited (24 019 855) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about increased Care Provider fees because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation. Durham County Council (24 020 198) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about poor care by his late mother's care provider. He says they ignored medication instructions which led to medication being administered incorrectly. This is because an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes. In addition, 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 ·5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT