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. Devon County Council (25 001 145) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint on behalf of her daughter Ms Y about restrictions the Council placed on contact with family members. This is because the complaint is late. Caldwell & Beling Ltd (25 001 354) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider's decision to place restrictions on Ms Y's visits to see her partner, Mr Y. We could not achieve a meaningful outcome by investigating the matter as there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Care Provider. Kent County Council (25 001 965) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to properly assess Ms X's care needs. This is because the complaint relates to events that took place several years ago. There is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate. Norfolk County Council (24 008 908) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to protect his late sister in-law, Ms Y, from financial abuse. There was no fault in the way the Council investigated Mr X's concerns under its safeguarding procedures. However, the Council was at fault for not applying for deputyship to manage Ms Y's finances when her capital reached the limit set out in the Council's policy. This caused Mr X and his wife distress and uncertainty. The Council has already apologised to Mr X. It did not cause an injustice to Ms Y as there was no evidence the Council mismanaged her finances. In addition, the Council has amended its policy to prevent a recurrence of fault. Shropshire Council (24 011 151) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council was unclear about the charges her mother (Mrs A) would pay for her care. The evidence shows the Council was not at fault in the way it charged Mrs A or alerted her to the possible charges. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 016 436) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider his complaint about Council commissioned care his mother, Mrs Y received, from Housing 21 and failed to provide an appropriate remedy after upholding the complaint. There was no fault in how the Council considered Mr X's complaint, and the Care Provider had already provided an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by fault in its actions relating to Mrs Y's care. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (24 017 019) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about delay in the Council notifying her of her mother's care charge arrears. This is because the likely fault has not caused significant injustice. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (25 001 112) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council investigated verbal information provided by one of its officers during a meeting discussing Mrs B's son. Any injustice caused to Mrs B was remedied when the Council investigated her complaint. We could not add to the Council's previous investigation. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Norfolk County Council (25 001 374) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision not to share the personal details of a family member. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to deal with this complaint. London Borough of Hillingdon (25 001 843) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's adult social care service. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Sanctuary Care Limited (25 002 305) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint, made on behalf of Mrs Y, about how care home staff dealt with the loss of Mrs Y's jewellery and changed her carer. Investigation of the jewellery matter would not add to the investigations by the Care Provider and the police nor lead to a different outcome. There is insufficient significant injustice caused by the Care Provider not reporting the jewellery loss to police to warrant us investigating. There is not enough evidence the changes to Mrs Y's carer, or how the Care Provider changed the carer, caused sufficient significant injustice to warrant investigation. London Borough of Lewisham (25 003 125) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful blue badge application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Coventry City Council (25 004 840) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council sharing information with the police. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation. Leicester City Council (25 008 438) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council managed Mr X's care and related charges. The substantive parts of Mr X's complaint are late and there is not a good reason for the delay in Mr X bringing these matters to us. We could not achieve a meaningful outcome in relation to events that are not late. Shropshire Council (24 017 961) Summary: Mr X complained the Council is chasing him for a balance owed for his late father's care home fees. Mr X says his late father's care home owes him a balance of a similar amount because of duplicated fees. The Council failed to ensure suitable correspondence was sent to Mr X about who to pay care home fees to following it taking over funding for his father's care. The Council agreed to reclaim any balance owed from the care home as the credit owed to Mr X's father's estate by the care home exceeds the balance owed by Mr X's father to the Council. The Council also agreed to refund any payments Mr X made in 2025 to the Council as part of the repayment arrangement. Cheshire West & Chester Council (25 000 747) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about her mother being charged for respite care at a care home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Sheffield City Council (25 001 195) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council refused to respond to a complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Peterborough City Council (25 001 326) Summary: We will not investigate the Council's handling of Mrs X's complaint about Mrs X's mother being controlled by another relative. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and also because we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants. Devon County Council (25 002 183) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about how the Council decided to refuse her a Blue Badge. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council's decision making. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (25 002 334) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council supported Miss X as a care leaver. This is because we could not add to any previous investigation by the Council and Miss X's injustice caused by any fault there was, has already been remedied. In addition, we cannot achieve the remedy Miss X wants. London Borough of Haringey (24 016 821) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to properly assess her care needs and to provide support to meet those needs. The Council was at fault. It has failed to assess Ms X's needs and its communication with Ms X was poor. It has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X to acknowledge the frustration and uncertainty caused and to reassess her care needs Thurrock Council (24 005 280) Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his father, Mr Y. He said Mr Y's care provider did not provide the agreed care and support detailed in Mr Y's care plan. This affected Mr Y's health and wellbeing, and he did not feel he received the care he paid for. We found there was fault by the Council as care visits were often less than the allocated 30 minutes. This caused distress which the Council agreed to provide a symbolic financial remedy for. However, we did not find Mr Y's care needs were not met. West Northamptonshire Council (24 006 399) Summary: Mr Y complained about how the Council reviewed his mother, Mrs X's, care and support needs. There were some delays in reviews of Mrs X's care needs and the Council communicated with Mr Y poorly at times. This caused Mr Y some avoidable frustration for which the Council agreed to apologise. The Council also agreed issue a reminder to its staff about the need for clear communication. Athena Healthcare (LSA One) Limited (24 010 027) Summary: Mrs A complained about the standard of care and treatment in the care home where her mother Mrs X was resident. There is no evidence of fault in the standards of care and treatment but there was a delay in providing a prompt response to Mrs A's complaint, for which the care provider has apologised West Sussex County Council (24 016 059) Summary: Mr X complained the Council decided to reduce his son's weekly care hours even though it had been agreed there were no changes in his needs. We did not find the Council at fault for how it decided this. Suffolk County Council (25 000 025) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's decision to refuse her application for a blue badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. Devon County Council (24 008 172) Summary: Mrs A complained that the Council failed to provide proper care for her father Mr X in his home. She says carers commissioned by the Council did not meet his needs or adhere to the care plan and as a result he lived in squalid conditions. The evidence shows there was regular contact with Mr X by the Council but until the last hospital admission, when he was assessed as lacking capacity to decide about his care, he was assessed to be able to make his own decisions about the small amount of care he would accept. However, the were delays in making contact with Mrs A which the Council agrees to remedy. Staffordshire County Council (24 012 060) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's financial assessment to decide if Mr Z should contribute towards the cost of his care. We found fault as the Council did not provide sufficient evidence it properly considered its discretion and Mr Z's particular circumstances. The Council agreed to make a fresh decision and apologise to Mrs X. Kent County Council (24 012 285) Summary: Mrs F complained on behalf of her son that the Council had wrongly charged him for his residential respite care and failed to properly consider his disability related expenditure. We found the Council had not properly considered whether to exercise discretion and this was fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to charge for the respite as though it was non-residential care, apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the distress caused. There was no fault in the Council's decision in relation to disability related expenditure. Avery Homes (Nelson) Limited (24 013 685) Summary: Mr X complained that the Care Provider unfairly banned him from visiting his mother following an incident. We did not find the Care Provider was at fault because it had to consider the welfare of its staff and other residents, and it offered Mr X a less restrictive option that he chose not to accept. Greensleeves Homes Trust (24 014 764) Summary: Mrs X complained that the care provider failed to safeguard her elderly mother Mrs A against abuse by a carer and also failed to take appropriate action afterwards. The evidence shows the care provider was at fault; the actions of the carer caused Mrs A significant distress and the care provider did not respond properly. The care provider will now take action to recognise Mrs A's distress and review its processes for responding to allegations. Wyndham Court Limited (24 015 295) Summary: Mrs X complained that the care provided by the Care Home was poor and did not meet her father's needs as an elderly person with dementia. We found fault with the Home in that Mr Y's care plan was not reviewed and updated when incidents occurred or his needs changed. This caused injustice to Mrs X and Mr Y in terms of uncertainty, distress, and unmet needs. The Care Provider has agreed to our recommendations to remedy this injustice. Ms K A Rogers (24 016 378) Summary: Miss X complained about aspects of care provided to her relative Mr Y in a residential care home which she said caused Mr Y physical and psychological harm. We have ended this investigation because further investigation would not achieve anything more. Birmingham City Council (24 022 415) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's safeguarding investigation and the actions of a day centre. There is insufficient evidence of fault that would justify us investigating the complaint further. London Borough of Wandsworth (24 023 500) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's assessment of the adaptations she needs to meet her medical needs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement. London Borough of Bromley (25 000 626) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about data protection matters, an occupational therapy assessment and a meeting between services. The Information Commissioner is best placed to consider complaints about data protection. There is not a good reason for the delay in other matters being brought to the Ombudsman. Ocean Hill Lodge Limited (25 003 176) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the failings in care provided by Ocean Hill Lodge. The matters are best dealt with by the court. London Borough of Newham (24 017 030) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's response to his request for a Disabled Facilities Grant to fund improvements to his property. We have found no fault by the Council in dealing with the matter. So we have completed our investigation. London Borough of Barnet (23 013 609) Summary: We found that North Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust failed to consistently provide adequate overnight support to a patient with a learning disability. We also found that the London Borough of Barnet failed to review the patient's needs in hospital when other professionals noted they had changed. And we found there were avoidable delays in the discharge process, caused by both organisations. These faults caused avoidable distress and uncertainty. We asked the organisations to apologise and provide small financial payments to address this injustice. Gloucestershire County Council (24 015 507) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about her brother, Mr Y's, care and treatment by Gloucestershire County Council, Gloucestershire Health and Care NHS Foundation Trust and Minchinhampton Surgery. A significant amount of time has passed since some of the events complained about occurred which impacts on our ability to consider them now. We are unlikely to find fault on some points. Finally, further investigation by the Ombudsmen is unlikely to achieve the changes to Mr Y's care that Miss X is hoping for. 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