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. South Gloucestershire Council (23 011 696) Summary: There was a failure to issue a carer's support plan for Mr X which caused him avoidable frustration and uncertainty about the outcome of his carer's assessment. The Council will apologise and issue Mr X with a carer's support plan. North Yorkshire Council (24 005 096) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about residential care arrangements for Mr X's wife, or how the Council dealt with safeguarding concerns. We cannot investigate the substantive issue, because Mr X cannot bring that complaint to us. And of the safeguarding matters there is no evidence of fault and no significant injustice. In any case we cannot achieve the outcome that Mr X is seeking. Brighton & Hove City Council (24 015 366) Summary: Mr Y complained the Council failed to source a suitable nursing home for his mother, Mrs X, which meant he had to pay third-party top ups when Mrs X moved to a nursing home. There was fault by the Council for its failure to provide Mrs X with at least an option of one available, and affordable respite nursing care home. This caused distress and uncertainty to Mr Y. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused. London Borough of Redbridge (24 017 751) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision not to authorise a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) for his adult child, Y. We ended our investigation because the Court of Protection is best placed to address his concerns. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (24 022 877) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the outcome of the occupational therapy assessment affecting his application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant investigation. Kent County Council (24 023 310) Summary: Mr X complains about the way Kent County Council and NHS Kent and Medway managed his care charges and communicated with him about them. We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about communication because there is insufficient injustice to warrant an investigation. We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's financial assessment as we are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council completed this. Nottinghamshire County Council (25 000 824) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision to treat gifts made to him and other family from his mother Mrs Y's trust as a deprivation of her assets to pay for her care. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's decision-making process here to warrant us investigating. West Sussex County Council (24 010 436) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the standard of care and support in the complainant's relative's care home. This is because the substantive matters have been to court or could reasonably have been raised with the court, plus we are unlikely to find fault with more recent complaint matters. Finally, we cannot achieve the outcome requested. Somerset Council (24 011 168) Summary: Mrs C complained about the Council's handling of Mr X's care and support visits and arrangements. We found the Council at fault for failing to clearly communicate the purpose of its review, having some errors in its report, and lack of record keeping of steps taken to find Mr X a suitable placement. The Council will apologise and make payment to acknowledge the injustice its faults caused Mr X and Mrs C. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (24 012 535) Summary: Miss D complained that Stoke-on-Trent City Council, Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent ICB and Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust failed to provide her with appropriate care following her discharge from long-term inpatient care. We found no fault with the care and support provided to Miss D by these organisations. Portsmouth City Council (24 016 978) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to inform her when she became responsible for paying for her care. We find the Council at fault for failing to transfer her to the appropriate team for a financial assessment and for poor record keeping. This has caused avoidable uncertainty. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her its proposed financial remedy. Brighton & Hove City Council (24 020 811) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the support provided to her by the Council's adult social care service. There is insufficient evidence of fault and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome. Devon County Council (24 023 087) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint the Council delayed in arranging support for her mother to return home. The Court of Protection has already considered the substantive matters, therefore we have no jurisdiction to investigate. London Borough of Bromley (24 023 128) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision to refuse his blue badge application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. East Devon District Council (24 023 167) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's handling of his disabled facilities grant application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement. Community Case Management Ltd (24 023 412) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about @. Suffolk County Council (25 000 400) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. Because there is not a significant enough injustice to justify our involvement and it is unlikely an investigation would achieve a different outcome. London Borough of Harrow (25 002 473) 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. Cheshire East Council (24 016 320) Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed taking action between August 2023 and November 2024 to displace her as the nearest relative under the Mental Health Act for her mother, Mrs Z after she told the Council she was incapable of acting. There are no records showing Miss X asked the Council to displace her prior to November 2024. The Council acted without fault once it was alerted to Miss X's request and the Court displaced Miss X in February 2025 Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (24 023 296) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's decision not to retrospectively fund completed adaptation works her father, Mr X, paid for and arranged privately. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. Norfolk County Council (25 000 139) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's care planning and decision-making related to his accommodation and support after he turns 18. The Council is considering his complaint under the children's statutory complaints procedure and in the process of arranging a stage three panel. It is reasonable to allow the Council to complete the statutory process. Mind Care & Support Limited (25 001 963) Summary: We have no remit to investigate this complaint about the conduct of a resident looked after by the Care Provider. This is because the complaint matters are not linked to personal care support. Oxfordshire County Council (24 021 213) Summary: Dr C complained about a Mental Health Act assessment. We consider Dr C's complaint is late. In any event, we are unlikely to find fault with the issues complained about. Hampshire County Council (25 000 167) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council informed Mrs D about charges her mother may have to pay for homecare. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant starting an investigation. Trafford Council (25 000 179) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about assessment of adult social care needs. The Council has accepted failures in process and apologised for it. We are satisfied with this action and could not say these errors caused the NHS decision to stop arranging the person's care. Shropshire Council (25 000 265) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care and where the person should live. The court of protection is better placed to consider this complaint as can order where the person should live. There is not a worthwhile outcome the Ombudsman could achieve. Cornwall Council (25 000 985) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council incorrectly assisting the Mrs X's funding assistance needs. This is because there is no evidence that the Council's calculations caused significant injustice. Worcestershire County Council (25 002 011) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint alleging staff failed to safeguard the complainant's late relative. This is because the matter is being considered by the coroner, so, at present, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable. Brighter Bloom Healthcare Group Ltd (24 017 312) Summary: Dr X complained the Care Provider accepted Mr B without completing an assessment of his needs and charged Mr B for a two week stay when he only stayed for one day. We have discontinued our investigation as the Care Provider has ceased trading, and we cannot complete our investigation or seek a remedy. Cambridgeshire County Council (24 022 659) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charging for adult social care because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Birmingham City Council (24 023 217) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about damage caused when completing minor adaptations. The Council's contractor has offered to take appropriate steps to rectify the damage and further investigation by us is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (25 000 547) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's handling of his request for housing assistance. There is insufficient evidence of fault and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more. London Borough of Lewisham (25 000 619) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful blue badge application. This is because the Council will offer the complainant another mobility assessment. Cordial Support Limited (25 001 488) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about anti-social behaviour from a neighbouring supported accommodation unit. This is because the complaint matters are not linked to personal care support. Cheshire West & Chester Council (24 015 778) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to award a Disabled Facilities Grant. This is because we would be unlikely to find 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