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. West Sussex County Council (24 009 730) Summary: Mrs C complained the Council failed to properly consider the decision to remove funding for transport to day support for her son, Mr D, because he had a Motability car. Mrs C says the Council's decision has resulted in added pressure on her and her husband; and costs neither they, nor Mr D, can meet. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (24 012 946) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint the Council ended direct payments for his daughters' care and support without following the correct process. This is because the issues could reasonably be or have been mentioned as part of legal proceedings on a closely related matter. Cheshire East Council (24 017 097) Summary: There was fault in the way the Agency provided care to Mrs D and in its record keeping. The Council has agreed to apologise, provide a financial remedy and carry out a service improvement. Oxfordshire County Council (24 018 295) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about flexibility of meeting adult social care needs. It is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault given the Council did suggest many options. Although the complainant says they were not suitable it is unlikely we would settle that dispute. An Ombudsman investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve a different outcome. Westbourne Care Limited (25 002 825) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Care Provider treated Mr X when visiting his mother. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the actions of the Care Provider and we could not achieve a meaningful outcome by investigating the matter. East Sussex County Council (25 003 305) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions in placing Mr X in a supported living property. There is not enough evidence of fault in the care provided to Mr X to warrant investigation by us. Bedford Borough Council (25 003 628) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint because the Council accepted it was at fault and provided a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused when it responded to Mr B's complaint about temporary accommodation it placed him in. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. North Northamptonshire Council (25 004 063) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint, brought on behalf of the late Mrs Y, about the Council's decision to not disregard Mrs Y's house when calculating her finances for care charging purposes. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now. Even if Mrs X's complaint had not been late, we would not have investigated because there is not enough evidence of Council fault to have warranted an investigation. Kent County Council (25 006 127) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled Ms X's complaints about a neighbour. This is because part of the complaint is late and because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable. London Borough of Bromley (25 001 615) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint that the Council failed to provide care and support services to her and her mother. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and because part of her complaint is made late. Anchor Hanover Group (25 003 093) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about privately arranged adult social care. The legality of the contract is better considered by a court. It is unlikely we would find fault with the Care Provider chasing for fees for a service it has provided. It is unlikely we would add to the Care Provider's investigation or achieve a different outcome. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (25 005 113) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about neglect in a care home. Substantive parts of Miss X's concern were considered in court, and it would have been reasonable to include all concerns as part of that claim. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (24 008 198) Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council has supported her care and support needs since March 2024. We find no fault in the care agencies arranged by the Council or in the timeliness of the information provided to Miss X. However, we do find fault in the delay in completing her care and support assessment. This delay caused Miss X avoidable distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and complete the outstanding assessment. North Yorkshire Council (24 015 891) Summary: Miss Y complains the Council failed to properly consider the concerns she raised about the care and support her late mother received and the suitability of the care home placements commissioned by the Council. We find the Council consulted Miss Y and listened to her concerns. However, the Council did not relay the outcome of one safeguarding concern. It has already made a service improvement for this and we do not recommend anything further. North Lincolnshire Council (24 017 422) Summary: Mr X complained the Council has failed to provide his assessed need of 28 hours per week of support and advocacy to him. We find the Council was at fault for its delay in finding a potential new care provider for Mr X and for failing to clarify with him how he wanted to proceed with his care and support needs. However, this fault did not cause Mr X a significant injustice. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (25 000 122) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X and Ms Y's complaint about an additional charge made for on-site services at their Council-run extra care housing. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (25 000 573) Summary: A care home, acting on behalf of the Council, acknowledged an initial oversight in having a bathing/showering plan in place for Mrs Y before the complaint came to this office. It verbally apologised to her daughter and took action to remedy the situation. There is no further remedy required from this office. There is no evidence to show the care home delayed seeking medical assistance for Mrs Y. Lancashire County Council (25 003 568) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. The injustice does not justify an Ombudsman investigation. We cannot decide what caused or contributed to a death, so it is unlikely we would add anything further or achieve a worthwhile outcome. Durham County Council (25 005 341) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to a referral to its Welfare Rights Service. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council's actions. North East Lincolnshire Council (25 005 473) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that a contractor switched off his solar panels when carrying out works to his property and about the Council's delay in responding to his complaint. This is because it is unlikely a further investigation by this office could add to the response already provided via the Council's previous investigation of the matter. Athena Healthcare (New Brighton One) Limited (25 003 540) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about privately arranged adult social care in a residential care home. We are satisfied with the action taken to waive half of the care fees. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would reach a different outcome. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (25 004 960) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X's disagreement with the Council over adaptations to her home under the Disabled Facilities Grant scheme. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Somerset Council (24 011 313) Summary: Mr Y complains about the Council's actions in relation to the care and support of his late mother, Mrs W. There was some delay in the Council's assessment and support planning of Mrs W which caused Mr Y some distress. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment of £200 in recognition of the injustice caused by the fault. We do not find fault in other parts of Mr Y's complaint. West Berkshire Council (24 014 783) Summary: Ms K was managing a direct payment for her daughter. She complains the Council failed to ensure her parents, who were carers for her daughter, received redundancy pay. We have upheld the complaint as the Council did not properly keep the direct payments under review. The Council has now agreed to make the redundancy payments, which in our view is a suitable remedy. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (24 016 885) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision to end direct payments to his relative Mr Z. There was no fault in the way the Council reached its decision. There was fault in its communication with Mr Z and in its failure to ensure there was a proper coordinated handover of care. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr Z to acknowledge the uncertainty and distress this caused him. The Council also failed to properly explore Mr Z's request for a day centre and Mr and Mrs X's request for respite. It has agreed to apologise to Mr and Mrs X for the uncertainty caused, review Mr Z's care needs assessment and carry out new carer's assessments of Mr and Mrs X. Cheshire East Council (24 017 993) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council produced backdated billing for her sister's care charges because it states she overpaid her carers. Mrs X also complained the Council started to charge client contributions towards her sister's care. And, Mrs X complained about the handling of her complaint. We found fault with the Council applying top-up fees for Mrs X's sisters care. We also found fault with the Council delaying in billing Mrs X's sister for her client contributions. During our investigation, the Council accepted fault for charging top-up fees and agreed to remove these. The Council has also advised it is only backdating charges to 2021 rather than 2017 for the client contributions. I consider the Council's actions suitably address the injustice caused through its fault. The Council has also agreed to apologise to Mrs X for the distress its actions caused and confirm in writing the remaining balance owed. London Borough of Merton (25 002 999) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council carried out a financial assessment and decided what expense to include. There is not enough evidence of fault and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Avery Homes (Nelson) Limited (24 008 336) Summary: Miss X complained about the way her mother's care home dealt with a financial contribution it received from a council towards care fees. We found the Care Provider's actions caused Miss X and her mother an injustice. Miss X suffered significant avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. Her mother paid too much towards her care fees. To remedy the injustice caused, the Care Provider has agreed to refund overpaid fees, apologise to Miss X and review its contract and complaints policy. Liverpool City Council (24 016 189) Summary: Ms X complained about the standard of care she received from providers commissioned by the Council, the way the Council carried out a care assessment of her needs and how it charged her for care. We found the Council at fault for the way it carried out a care assessment and for delays carrying out a new assessment. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and make a payment to her for the distress caused. West Northamptonshire Council (24 017 055) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council unfairly refused her application for a disabled parking badge. We have found that the Council was not at fault, because its approach to Mrs X's application was neither unreasonable nor obviously at odds with the government's best practice guidance. This means we cannot question the merits of the Council's decision to refuse the application. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (25 003 659) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about charges for his father's care. The Council has apologised for their billing errors. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome. Devon County Council (25 008 670) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X's blue badge application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. Essex County Council (24 003 413) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council wrongly billed the estate of her relative (Mrs Q) for her residential care when she was eligible for funding under section 117 aftercare. We found fault by the Council because it did not complete a detailed section 117 assessment or aftercare plan when Mrs Q was discharged from hospital. However we consider if it had done so it would, on the balance of probabilities, have found Mrs Q did not have section 117 aftercare needs requiring residential care. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs X in recognition of the uncertainty caused to her by the identified fault. Essex County Care Limited (24 022 531) 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. North Northamptonshire Council (24 019 678) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's alleged failure to provide Mr Y's care. We could not achieve a meaningful outcome by investigating the matter 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