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. London Borough of Hackney (24 015 097) Summary: Mr B complained on behalf of his partner, Mr C, that they experienced persistent problems with the Council's contractor undertaking minor adaptations needed by Mr C. We upheld the complaint, finding poor customer service by the contractor and faults by the Council in its practice. We considered these caused avoidable distress, which was an injustice to both Mr B and Mr C. The Council accepted these findings and at the end of this statement we set out the action it has agreed to remedy that injustice and improve its service. Oxfordshire County Council (24 016 509) Summary: We have upheld Ms X's complaint about the Council not completing a Care Act assessment in February 2025 as promised. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X for this fault, which provides a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. We will not investigate the other part of Ms X complaint because it is late. West Sussex County Council (24 017 707) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about how the Council responded to safeguarding referrals about his welfare. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (24 018 634) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide appropriate care and support for Mrs Y during her six week stay and dismissed the family's concerns about Mrs Y's presentation and wellbeing. We found there was no evidence of fault in the care and support the care home provided to Mrs Y. Derbyshire County Council (25 001 996) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's care needs assessment of his relative Mrs Y and it not offering a Deferred Payment Arrangement (DPA). There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's decision-making processes to warrant us investigating. Bristol City Council (25 002 076) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about fees for adult social care. The complainant can take the matter to court. Hampshire County Council (25 002 454) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's record keeping. This is because there is another body better placed to consider. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (25 004 777) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a blue badge application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice. Ideal Care Homes Ltd (24 006 556) Summary: Ms A and her sister Ms B complain that the care provider gave notice on their late father's placement without due reason and they had to find another placement at short notice for their elderly father who has dementia. The care provider failed to meet Mr X's needs and gave notice inappropriately; the care provider agrees to acknowledge that and pay a suitable sum to Ms A and her sister in recognition of the stress caused. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (24 007 003) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council arranged access for Mr B to remove his personal belongings from his former home when his tenancy ended. We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the bed in his care home and having access to his mobile phone. We cannot add to the previous investigation by the Council. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Suffolk County Council (24 016 358) Summary: Miss C complained on her own behalf and that of her son, Mr D, who has care needs. We upheld her complaint, finding the Council undertook a flawed review of Mr D's care needs. This resulted in it wrongly stopping him paying Miss C as his carer, against his wishes. This caused unnecessary distress to both Miss C and Mr D and contributed to Mr D having no organised care provision after July 2024. The Council has accepted these findings. At the end of this statement, we set out the action it has agreed to remedy this injustice and improve its service to avoid a repeat. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 017 387) Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to properly consider his request that it include medical cannabis as a disability related expense when it completed his financial assessment. We do not find the Council at fault. Nottinghamshire County Council (25 001 685) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council failed to carry out mental capacity assessments for his sister. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants. Buckinghamshire Council (25 001 807) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Council assessing Mr X's care needs and finances. This is because any delay would not have caused an injustice to Mr X. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (25 002 200) Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about Mrs Y's care. There is not a good reason for the delay in the complaint being escalated to the Ombudsman. Parts of the complaint are about NHS responsibilities and are for the Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman. London Borough of Hounslow (25 004 558) 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. London Borough of Hackney (23 011 262) Summary: Mrs B complained about the failure to properly consider her brother, Mr C's needs before placing him in a care placement, failed to ensure the placement acted appropriately when transferring him to hospital, failed to ensure the care provider put in place support for him, failed to communicate properly with her and delayed responding to her complaint. Mrs B says the failures caused her significant distress. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered care placements for Mr C before he moved in to a placement. The Council failed to identify a new placement when Mr C needed to move from that placement and delayed dealing with the complaint. The care provider acting on behalf of the Council failed to include Mr C in the assessment, failed to follow the transition plan and failed to follow the care plan. An apology, payment to Mrs B, a review and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (24 017 905) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to meet her assessed care needs. The Council delayed assessing Ms X's needs, delayed setting up the direct payments and failed to provide interim care impacting Ms X's health and wellbeing. A symbolic payment is agreed. London Borough of Haringey (24 018 361) Summary: Mr X complained the Council has failed to adequately meet his care and support needs. Mr X has been in a temporary accommodation since June 2024 which he says is not suitable for his care needs. We found there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council has assessed or met Mr X's care needs. Staffordshire County Council (25 000 608) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint the Council did not complete a financial assessment correctly. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the fault accepted has not caused any significant injustice. London Borough of Ealing (25 000 832) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council not providing her with section 117 aftercare following her discharge from hospital. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused by the likely fault. Nottingham City Council (25 000 951) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint the Council stopped her package of care. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made that decision to justify our involvement. Devon County Council (25 001 151) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about a delayed response to her complaint. This is because we are unlikely to achieve a worthwhile outcome. Durham County Council (25 001 582) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement in the decisions to place Mr B's partner in a care home and keep her there. Any concerns Mr B has about mental capacity assessments or best interests decisions completed and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation in place can be considered by the Court of Protection. North Northamptonshire Council (25 001 964) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council followed its safeguarding procedures when it received safeguarding reports about a vulnerable adult, Mr D. Mr and Mrs B who are Mr D's parents complain about concerns they had from 2017 for a seven-year period. The complaint is late. We could not add to any previous investigation by the Council. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (25 002 484) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint the Council refused to complete adaptations to his home. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Cheshire West & Chester Council (24 011 919) Summary: Mrs X complains about failings and lack of support from the Council's adult social care services when her late sister, Miss Y, was discharged from hospital into residential care. Mrs X said the care homes where Miss Y stayed were unsuitable and the Council did not provide adequate charging information. Mrs X was left with a large invoice for Miss Y's care. We found the Council was not at fault in sourcing residential care placements, or in the charging information it gave. The Council accepted it took too long to allocate a social care assessor and apologised. Rutland County Council (24 016 225) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to concerns Mrs X has about a family relation. This is because there is not sufficient evidence of fault for parts of her complaint and as to the other parts, it is not likely investigation would lead to a different outcome. Staffordshire County Council (24 016 283) Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council decided to discharge her mother, Mrs Y, to a care home without considering whether Mrs Y could return home with a care package. Mrs X said she was ignored and not given any advice or help while she was applying for deputyship which took two years. Mrs X says the Council are now chasing her for £90,000 of outstanding care home fees. We have found fault in the Councils actions for failing to consider Mrs Y returning home and for the information it provided Mrs X about the costs of a care home and applying for deputyship. The Council agrees to apologise to Mrs X, complete service improvements and pay Mrs X a financial payment. Alcedo Blue Limited (24 017 250) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care at home. It is unlikely we would add to the Care Provider's investigation or reach a different outcome. T.L. Care Limited (24 017 699) Summary: The Care Home responded to Mrs Y's reports of uncleanliness in her father, Mr X's, room. The Care Home was at fault for not trying to engage Mr X in activities. On balance, I cannot say this contributed to Mr X's death. The Care Home has agreed to apologise to Mrs Y. London Borough of Croydon (24 020 043) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to investigate concerns about an incident when her relative, Mrs Y, received domiciliary care. She also complained about poor complaint handling. Mrs X said this caused distress and believed Mrs Y would be alive if it were not for the incident. We have discontinued the investigation. This is a late complaint and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to consider this matter now. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider the complaint about not providing information. The Ombudsman will not complete an investigation to only consider complaint handling. Gloucestershire County Council (25 002 375) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to charge for care it arranged for Mr X's late mother in 2023. This is because the complaint is late. Surrey County Council (24 011 748) Summary: Mr C complains the Council wrongly refused his application for a Blue Badge and the assessment caused him physical pain. I have found procedural fault in the Council's Blue Badge assessment which creates doubt about the outcome reached. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr C, and make service improvements. Trafford Council (24 014 139) Summary: Miss C complained the Council failed to investigate safeguarding concerns she raised and failed to deal with her complaint. The Council delayed considering the safeguarding issues and referred Miss C to the commissioned service to complain. That delayed repayment to Miss B and caused Miss C distress. An apology, payment to Miss C and evidence of the action the Council has taken in response to the issues raised is satisfactory remedy. Isle of Wight Council (24 015 186) Summary: Mr B complained about the care and support provided to his mother and about the Council's actions in arranging it. We found no fault. Park Homes (UK) Limited (24 019 144) Summary: Miss Y complained the Care Provider failed to refund all the fees her mother, Mrs X, overpaid after she transferred from private to council funding in 2023. The Care Provider delayed refunding Mrs X for nearly two years and has not refunded everything Mrs X overpaid. This caused a financial loss to Mrs X and avoidable frustration, time and trouble to Miss Y. The Care Provider agreed to refund the rest of the fees Mrs X paid and to review its process for when people move from private to state funding. Surrey County Council (24 016 511) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to meet his eligible care needs for three months and it failed to attend borough council meetings about his housing. We found there was a lack of care provision which was Service Failure by the Council. We also found there was a failure to attend housing meetings after agreeing to do so. This was a lack of partnership working. The fault by the Council led to distress to Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise, make a distress payment and work on an action plan to avoid the same issues happening again. Bedford Borough Council (24 013 793) Summary: Mr X complained the Council has failed to properly complete his financial assessments or correctly consider his disability related expenses, which has resulted in unaffordable care charges and a substantial debt. We found the Council at fault for not identifying and assisting Mr X in managing his escalating debt, and for the delays in the complaint process. These faults have caused Mr X distress and frustration. The Council will apologise, make a payment and take action to improve communication between the finance team and adult social care team, and produce guidance for staff about managing debt for vulnerable adults. Understanding Care (Coventry) Limited (24 010 543) Summary: Ms A complains that the care provider did not provide a good standard of care for her father Mr X, failed to adhere to its pet policy, charged for two care-workers when only one was needed, and failed to keep proper records. There was fault in the actions of the care provider which led to poor care and distress for Mr X. The care provider has waived some fees, reviewed staff training and apologised for its shortcomings. The care provider has also now reimbursed the cost of rehoming Mr X's dog to remedy the injustice caused. 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