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 (24 014 694) Summary: There was fault in the way the Council assessed Mrs C's needs for care and support. This meant that it is not certain what the outcome of the assessment would have been if the fault had not happened. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay a symbolic financial remedy and carry out a service improvement. Park Homes (UK) Limited (24 017 587) Summary: Mrs X complained about the quality of care provided to her late mother Mrs Y at a care home. We have ended our investigation as there is no worthwhile outcome we could achieve by further investigating this complaint. West Sussex County Council (24 018 274) Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Council's handling of a financial assessment for Ms X. The Council has agreed appropriate action to remedy the injustice caused. London Borough of Lewisham (24 019 734) Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not adequately consider her daughter, Miss Y's needs or provide the support she needed. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault with how the Council considered Miss Y's needs and decided she did not require social care support. Midshires Care Limited (24 021 020) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Care Provider's handling of her grandmother's care. The Care Provider has investigated Miss X's concerns, upheld her complaint, apologised and offered to waive care and cancellation charges. We could not add to the Care Provider's responses by investigating the matter further. Surrey County Council (24 021 861) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council completed safeguarding enquiries. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Cheshire East Council (24 021 650) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of care in a care home. There is insufficient evidence of fault in some areas of complaint, and insufficient evidence of injustice in others, to warrant investigation by the Ombudsman. Norfolk County Council (24 023 138) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to place Miss B's brother in a respite care home placement. Miss B is complaining too late and there is no good reason to investigate now. Portsmouth City Council (25 002 546) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a safeguarding adults enquiry. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken, and it is unlikely we would achieve anything further. The Council has accepted delay, apologised for the impact, and acted to improve future service. London Borough of Harrow (25 002 897) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a travel pass for a carer. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Dorset Council (24 008 916) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to ensure her mother, Mrs Y, received the care she had been assessed as needing at Blandford Grange Care Home, and failed to carry out proper safeguarding enquiries into her concerns. The Care Home did not always meet Mrs Y's needs, which could have put her at risk of harm, although there is no evidence of significant harm to Mrs Y. Nevertheless, the Council needs to apologise to Mrs X for the distress caused to her and her mother. Castle Mead Court Care Centre Limited (24 016 718) Summary: The Care Provider failed to deliver aspects of Mr X's care plan. It also failed to follow its complaint process when responding to Mrs X's complaint. This caused Mrs X distress and uncertainty. The Care Provider has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X and review its record keeping. Portsmouth City Council (24 018 535) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the decision to apply for a warrant to gain entry to Miss D's home and take her to a place of safety to assess her mental health. It is unlikely we would find fault and Miss D had a right of appeal about the decision to detain her and this was the most appropriate route. It is unlikely we could achieve the outcome Miss D wants. Country House Care Limited (24 021 530) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about poor care provided to his mother by her care home and about the care home's refusal to refund some fees. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault, and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Park Homes (UK) Limited (24 000 140) Summary: Mr X complained that the care provider failed to respond to his requests to settle his late father's account. The care provider has now resolved the payments. I find the care provider took too long to respond to Mr X's reasonable requests. It should apologise to him, offer a sum which recognises the time, trouble and frustration he was caused by its delay, review its complaint processes and its adherence to the guidance on fee notification. Birmingham City Council (24 002 649) Summary: Mr X complained about delays in the Council completing adaptations to his home following an Occupational Therapy assessment in January 2023. Mr X said this caused him significant distress and he suffered physically. There was fault in the way the Council delayed completing the work to Mr X's home, did not communicate with Mr X and its poor complaint handling. This frustrated and distressed Mr X, he has lived in an unsuitable home since January 2024, and he was put to time and trouble to complain. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and issue guidance to its staff. Cambridgeshire County Council (24 011 650) Summary: Ms Y complained about how the Council charged her son, Mr X, for a contribution to his care and support and tried to collect a debt from him. There was fault in how the Council communicated with Mr X and Ms Y, with some of the action it took to recover the debt and how it assessed Mr X's claim for some expenses. This caused Ms Y some avoidable distress. The Council agreed to apologise, pay Ms Y a financial remedy and reassess Mr X's contribution. It also agreed to review some of its practices. Thurrock Council (24 021 469) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions in relation to Mr X's social care, and events in his accommodation. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Care Provider's actions during three individual incidents Mr X complained about in 2024. Mr X has not yet complained to the Council about its actions from 2024 onwards and we cannot investigate those matters until the Council has had the opportunity to investigate and respond. Complaints about the Council's earlier actions are late. London Borough of Haringey (24 021 676) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council refusing to arrange care and support for her mother at home to facilitate a discharge from hospital and about failing to complete a continuing healthcare checklist. This is because there are no worthwhile outcomes achievable. Kent County Council (24 022 289) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to change Mr B's allocated social worker based on his preference. The Council explained to Mr B why it cannot change his allocated social worker and there is not enough evidence of fault. An investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome. Staffordshire County Council (24 022 624) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's calculation of her mother's financial expenditure when it calculated how much she should contribute towards her domiciliary care. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (24 023 166) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a disputed invoice for his care provision. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider it now. Lovett Care Limited (24 016 717) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the standard of care she received whilst staying at a care home. This is because an investigation would not lead to any further findings or worthwhile outcomes. In addition, there is another body better placed to consider her complaint about the Council's handling of her personal data. Liverpool City Council (24 019 962) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. It is unlikely we would add to the Council's response or achieve anything further. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (24 022 201) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the actions and behaviour of a support worker. This is because the complaint is not in our jurisdiction. Change, Grow, Live (25 001 629) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about the actions of his key workers at a community substance abuse service because it lies outside our jurisdiction. This is because the complaint is not made about, or in connection with, the provision of adult social care. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (24 003 423) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's assessment of Mr X's care charges. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 010 323) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about . London Borough of Wandsworth (24 014 250) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to act when she contacted it with concerns about her late brother's care and it was difficult to get in contact with anyone. She also complained the care home the Council commissioned failed to get an air mattress for her late brother before he went into hospital and the care home failed to treat his urine infection. We find fault with the care home's communication with Mrs X and the care it provided to her late brother. The Council was at fault for its communication with Mrs X. These faults have caused Mrs X upset, distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to apologise to Mrs X and make a payment to her. Northumberland County Council (24 010 015) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly assess his needs in relation to adapting his home under a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). The Council was not at fault. North East Lincolnshire Council (24 010 073) Summary: Mr X complained Care Plus Group Ltd, acting on behalf of the Council, unsafely discharged his late father Mr Y from residential respite care to his home without proper assessments and care planning. There was fault in the assessment and care planning process, which caused distress to Mr Y and Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy to Mr X. It will also work with Care Plus Group Ltd to produce an action plan of changes to policies, processes, and staff training, to address the faults identified. London Borough of Croydon (24 011 655) Summary: Ms C complains about the Council's decision to reduce her sister's direct payment. I have found no procedural fault in the way the Council has reached its decision. It is however at fault for failing to address all Ms C's complaints. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms C and make service improvements. Hertfordshire County Council (24 018 312) Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X's complaint about adult safeguarding involving their son, Mr Y. We could not add to the investigations and responses the Council has already provided. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr and Mrs X want. West Northamptonshire Council (24 020 277) Summary: We have upheld Mr and Mrs X's complaint about a delay in the Council reimbursing care charges to their adult son, Mr Z. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Durham County Council (24 021 091) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint that the Council did not make her aware she would be charged a contribution towards the cost of the home and that she should not have to pay because she does not want to live in the care home. This is because there are no worthwhile outcomes achievable. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault. Southend-on-Sea City Council (24 021 686) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about his father being charged for his care home placement. He says his father should not be charged because he remains under the care of the hospital. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault. City of York Council (24 021 915) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a lack of information and notice from the Council about the closure of Mrs X's Care Provider. This is because the matter has not caused Mr X any significant personal injustice which is serious enough to warrant an investigation. City of Wolverhampton Council (24 022 262) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint the Council failed to take appropriate action regarding safeguarding concerns he raised about abuse his mother was suffering, and that the Council failed to call him back. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint. East Sussex County Council (25 000 117) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X's blue badge application. This is because we could not reasonably achieve more through investigation. Kent County Council (24 000 111) Summary: Mrs Y complains that her son, Mr D, was left with unmet care needs due to failures by the Council in 2023. She also says the Council did not arrange appropriate advocacy support for Mr D, did not provide information and advice about the use of direct payments and failed to consider its duties under the Equality Act. We find there was a delay in reviewing Mr D's direct payments. The fault has created uncertainty because we cannot say if Mr D had unmet needs during the period of delay. We also find the Council did not post monthly statements of the direct payment account as agreed. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment of £250 to Mr D. 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