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 Haringey (24 014 203) Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not act when she raised concerns about Mr Y's welfare. She also complained about the Council's handling of her complaint. Ms X said the Council's actions caused distress to Mr Y, his family and Ms X. The Council was at fault. It has not evidenced it considered if it needed to act to safeguard Mr Y. This left Mr Y at risk of harm and caused Ms X, Mr Y and his family uncertainty. The Council's complaint handling was poor and this caused frustration to Ms X. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (23 011 537) Summary: The Council, and KWL acting on its behalf, were at fault for delay installing a level access shower in Mr X's home and for the poor quality of the resulting works. As a result, Mr X was without an adaption he needed for over two years and experienced avoidable distress and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, make a payment, and act to improve its services. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (24 015 115) Summary: There was fault in the Council's delay in sending an invoice and in the information it provided to Mr D and his family on what the cost of a care package would be. This meant that Mr D and his family did not have the necessary information to make informed decisions about the care package. The Council has agreed to apologise, to cancel a proposed invoice and has agreed a service improvement. Kent County Council (24 018 252) Summary: Mr B complained that the Council had delayed in carrying out an assessment of his care needs and providing support. It also failed to adhere to a communication plan, communicate with him appropriately or explain how his case was progressing. We found fault in the actions of the Council which caused Mr B significant distress and uncertainty over a prolonged period. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and increase the symbolic payment to £1000. Lincolnshire County Council (24 018 530) Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider the history of gifting when calculating notional capital due to deprivation of assets. There was no fault on this point. There was some delay and failure to pay the correct amount to the care home but this did not cause significant injustice to the family. London Borough of Lambeth (24 022 555) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to the complainant's safeguarding referral. Part of the complaint is late and there is no good reason the complainant could not have come to us sooner. It is unlikely an investigation would find fault with the Council for more recent events. Devon County Council (25 001 524) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial assessment for adult social care. There is not enough evidence of fault in the process, so we cannot question the outcome. London Borough of Brent (25 006 162) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms X's contact with the Council. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. London Borough of Hillingdon (24 017 926) Summary: Mrs S complained that her sister received an invoice for care charges which were sometimes above the weekly amount they were told would be owed. There was no fault by the Council. Miss X self funded her care and the Council told her that if the carers billed for increased charges, these would be passed on. The charges were also reduced when the weekly care was reduced. London Borough of Harrow (24 022 958) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council arranged for a charity to manage Ms X finances several years ago and about delays in responding to her request to end her home care package in 2023. Ms X's complaint about the management of her finances is late and she could have complained about this sooner. In response to our suggestion, the Council agreed to refund the contributions Ms X paid during the delays, and to apologise and make a symbolic payment to recognise the distress it caused her. This is a suitable remedy for the injustice. Norfolk County Council (25 001 437) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about charges for care services she received in 2022. She says she should not have to pay the charges as she was not aware she was being charged for the care services until June 2022. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint. In addition, the claimed fault has not caused any significant injustice. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (25 002 045) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failure to respond to adult social care concerns through its safeguarding process. Although this caused frustration and upset, it is not significant injustice to justify an Ombudsman investigation. The Council responded to concerns through its complaint process, and regularly reviews the care package. Staffordshire County Council (25 002 137) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's financial assessment for residential care. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's decision-making. Any delay or lack of clarity did not cause significant enough injustice to justify an investigation. Lincolnshire County Council (25 002 418) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care provided to Ms Z up to the end of 2022. The complaint is late and I can see no good reason to exercise my discretion and investigate now. London Borough of Lewisham (25 005 740) 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. Bureaucom Limited (24 010 012) Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her sister that she had not received appropriate care in the home managed by Bureaucom Limited. The Care Provider had not done enough to make sure that Mrs B's oral health was maintained and did not record a review of risk and support when she fractured her toes meaning that she was more likely to fall. These shortcomings caused Mrs X and Mrs B distress and uncertainty. The Care Provider should apologise to Mrs X and make a payment to her and her sister in recognition of the distress it caused them. London Borough of Waltham Forest (24 015 775) Summary: Ms C complains the Council has not provided support to meet her eligible care needs. The Council is at fault for failing to produce a support plan which identifies what services meet Ms C's eligible needs. Because of these faults Ms C has the uncertainty that the reablement services offered by the Council will not meet her needs. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms C, produce a support plan, and make service improvements. West Sussex County Council (25 000 347) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint the Council's chosen preferred scheme does not consider all the household's needs and occupational therapist recommendations. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Surrey County Council (25 001 286) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint the Council has not managed her father's house properly as it left the house to rot and fall into a state of disrepair, and refused to allow her access to the property to manage it. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, Ms X is not a suitable representative to make the complaint on Mr Z's behalf. Staffordshire County Council (25 001 982) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how a care provider organises care provision. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council's actions. In addition, there is no evidence to suggest Mr X has been caused a significant personal injustice. Thurrock Council (25 002 158) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaints that the Council mismanaged the Disabled Facilities Grant process leading to delays in work being completed. There is not enough evidence of fault or injustice to warrant an investigation. Manchester City Council (25 003 694) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of Mr X's blue badge application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council's decision. Suffolk County Council (25 003 826) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint concerning a direct payments contingency fund. This is because the complainant has confirmed the Council has resolved her complaint by adding to her care provision so we could not add anything more. Essex County Council (25 009 073) Summary: Ms X is complaining about the care and support provided to her father, Mr Y, by Essex County Care Ltd, Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust and Essex County Council. We will not investigate Ms X's complaint due to the time that has passed since the events she is complaining about took place. Kent County Council (24 017 132) Summary: The Council was not at fault in the way it decided to protect Mr Y's belongings when he went into hospital or in the time taken to return the belongings to him. It was at fault for the delay in asking Mr Y whether he was happy with the Council securing his belongings once it was satisfied he could make his own decisions, however, this did not cause an injustice to Mr Y. The Council has already made a service improvement. The Council was also at fault for delaying responding to Mr X's complaint. The Council has already apologised to Mr X and offered him a symbolic payment. It has agreed to remind relevant staff of the timescales set out in its complaints' procedure. Northumberland County Council (24 020 920) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint, as another body is better placed to do so. London Borough of Bexley (25 002 809) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to restrict its contact with Mr X. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Leicestershire County Council (25 003 566) Summary: We will not investigate Miss 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. Broadway Lodge (25 003 682) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of Mr X's Care Provider. This is because the actions complained of do not relate to providing adult social care, so we do not have the legal power to investigate. Southampton City Council (24 015 530) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing Mental Capacity Assessments to decide if a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard was required for her son, Mr Y. Mrs X said Mr Y may have been illegally deprived of his liberty since he turned 18. Mrs X said this caused her significant distress. There was fault in the way the Council did not complete the correct assessments within a reasonable timescale. This fault meant Mr Y has been deprived of his liberty without the legal authority to do so. This frustrated and distressed Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment, provide training to its staff and take action to address its backlog of other outstanding Mental Capacity Assessment and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards London Borough of Harrow (24 015 889) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to safeguard her mother, Ms Y, who currently lives in sheltered accommodation. Mrs X said the Council did not properly consider whether Ms Y was able to make decisions about where she wanted to live and her care and support needs. We ended our investigation as the Council had investigated the concerns and offered an appropriate remedy for the distress and frustration caused by the faults identified. It would be unlikely to achieve anything more with a further investigation. In addition, the Council has not had the opportunity to consider Mrs X's new complaints. Kent County Council (24 016 385) Summary: Ms F complained that Kent County Council and NHS Kent and Medway Integrated Care Board's flawed Section 117 aftercare policy meant she would have to unfairly contribute toward accommodation costs. We consider the Council and ICB's Multi-Agency Policy is flawed, which has caused Ms F confusion, uncertainty and distress. The Council and ICB have agreed to apologise to Ms F, make a symbolic payment to her, review the policy, and offer to reassess her Section 117 aftercare needs. Worcestershire County Council (24 014 179) Summary: There was a service failure in the provision of the section 117 aftercare and some fault in the way the Council decided to communicate with Mr B. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B, offer him a further meeting and has agreed to communicate via Mr B's representative if Mr B agrees. Leeds City Council (24 015 606) Summary: Mr B complained that the Councils said he was not eligible for a supported housing development. We have found fault in the way the Council assessed Mr B's needs, the failure to properly record the eligibility criteria for the housing development and the Council's communications about the criteria. The Council has already provided a financial remedy for the distress caused to Mr B by the fault and has amended the eligibility criteria. The Council has also agreed to apologise to Mr B and to carry out a service improvement. Cornwall Council (24 021 365) Summary: The Council was not at fault for the way it assessed Mr X's finances and calculated his care charges. It considered Mr X's capital as it was at the time of the assessment and then considered changes in his circumstances when it re-calculated his care contributions. North Yorkshire Council (24 021 973) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care in a care home. The injustice to the complainant is not significant enough to justify our involvement and we cannot achieve the outcome they want. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider access to information. Staffordshire County Council (25 002 353) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's assessment of his finances and disability-related expenditure. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation. Willowbrook Healthcare Limited (25 002 355) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider's failure to properly care for Ms X shortly before she died. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find evidence of fault on the Care Provider's part causing a significant injustice. Bath and North East Somerset Council (24 020 387) Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council handled a safeguarding concern she raised about her relative. Based on current evidence, we find the Council at fault for a flawed safeguarding decision, an unreasonable delay in completing a care and support assessment, and a failure to involve Mrs X in that assessment. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X. Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (25 001 281) Summary: We have upheld Mr X's complaint about a delay in carrying out a Care Act assessment. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the frustration caused, which is appropriate so we will not investigate further. 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