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. Plymouth City Council (23 013 813) Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of the Y family that Plymouth City Council and Livewell Southwest did not put support in place, recommended by an independent social worker. We consider they missed opportunities to consider Miss Y's ability to make decisions about her support. The Council delayed arranging a review of Miss Y's direct payment. Also, Livewell significantly delayed Miss Y accessing occupational therapy, and speech and language therapy. Those faults caused Miss Y and her family uncertainty, anxiety and frustration. The Council and Livewell have agreed to apologise and take action to remedy their injustice. London Borough of Enfield (24 009 582) Summary: Mr X complained about Mr Y's care charges. Mr X said Mr Y was caused distress by a large, unexpected bill. We find the Council at fault for not recording its decision making or acting on Mr X's request for the care hours to be reduced. The Council has agreed to apologise and waive the charges. Haven Care Solutions Limited (24 012 911) Summary: Ms A complains the care provider failed to act promptly when her mother Mrs X fell in the bath. We do not find fault with the actions of the care provider. This was an unwitnessed fall and the safeguarding alert was not pursued by the Council. Norfolk County Council (24 016 539) Summary: Ms D complains the Council failed to provide suitable support to her and safeguard her. The Council is at fault for failing to make proper transition arrangements for Ms D, to consider safeguarding alerts and for failing to complete carers' assessments. This has caused uncertainty about whether Ms D and her family would have had services earlier which would have met their needs more suitably and reduced the distress caused by the Council's lack of action. To remedy the complaint the Council will, apologise to Ms D and her family, make symbolic payments and service improvements. Wakefield City Council (24 017 615) Summary: Mrs X complained about the way Rosedale Care Services (Yorkshire) Limited responded to her concerns about the incident which happened to her mother when she was receiving residential care in the Sycamores Care Home. We found fault with the Council for not ensuring the care provider, delivering services on its behalf, kept proper records. This caused injustice to Mrs X and her brother. The Council has agreed to apologise and request some service improvements from Highgate Care Services Limited, which succeeded Rosedale Care Services (Yorkshire) Limited. Churchfields Care Home Limited (24 021 535) Summary: Mr X complained that the Care Provider did not pass on Funded Nursing Care (FNC) contribution payments by deducting these from his wife's (Mrs X) care home fees. We found the Care Provider was at fault as the care home agreement with Mrs X was silent on FNC and how these NHS-based contributions are treated against its overall fee structure and the services contractually agreed. This caused Mr and Mrs X uncertainty with respect to how the care home agreement operated. The Care Provider has agreed to apologise to remedy the uncertainty caused. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 000 924) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision that his relative, Ms Y, deprived herself of assets in order to reduce care charges. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council's decision-making to warrant an investigation. Redcar & Cleveland Council (25 002 984) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint that the Council failed to tell her and her husband that he would have to contribute towards the cost of his care. There is not enough evidence of fault or injustice to warrant an investigation. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 003 224) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council arranging for her relative, Mrs Y, to live with Mr Z on discharge from hospital. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement. London Borough of Merton (25 004 183) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement in an NHS continuing healthcare funding eligibility decision appeal. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Blackburn with Darwen Council (25 004 288) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council responded to safeguarding concerns Miss B raised about family members. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Cornwall Council (25 004 578) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about how the Council gave her late parents a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG), put a charge against the property, is not waiving the charge, and how it communicated with her about the matter. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant us investigating. Investigation of the communications issue would not result in a different outcome. Leicestershire County Care Limited (25 005 460) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider failing to refund money it owed to Mrs Y after the local authority paid it for Mrs Y's care. It has now refunded the funds. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (25 006 761) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision to refuse him a Blue Badge. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council's decision making. Cumberland Council (24 006 046) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to withdraw an offer of a disabled facilities grant. The complaint is too late and we have seen no reason why Mr X could not have contacted us much sooner. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 001 302) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's handling of Mr Y's case. The Council has upheld Mr X's complaint that it failed to properly assess Mr Y's mental capacity and best interests for several years. It has apologised to Mr X for the faults identified, offered a substantial remedy payment and taken action to learn and improve its service. There is nothing more we could meaningfully achieve by investigating this matter further. Leicestershire County Council (25 001 362) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care provided at home, and specifically about the mismanagement of medication. It is unlikely we would add to the Council's investigation or reach a different outcome. There is not enough outstanding injustice to justify our involvement; the Council apologised to recognise the impact of failings in service. We are satisfied with the actions the Council took. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (25 003 252) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled a complaint regarding adult social care assessment. We could not achieve a meaningful outcome as the substantive matter was resolved, and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint-handling in isolation. Middlesbrough Borough Council (25 003 896) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision after care assessments to end direct payments to Mr X and Mr Y. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision to warrant investigation by us Essex County Council (25 004 028) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council followed its safeguarding procedures. The Council has now agreed to consider Ms B's complaint. Lincolnshire County Council (25 004 643) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council-commissioned Care Provider. There is insufficient evidence of injustice having been caused to Ms X, her father (Mr Y) or other residents. Cornwall Council (25 004 849) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council pursuing a care fee sum it considers due from his late mother Mrs Y's estate, and delaying invoicing for the fees. There is not enough evidence that Council fault has led to the claimed care fee debt or to it being unpaid by the estate to warrant us investigating. Investigation of the invoice issue would not lead to a different outcome. Wiltshire Council (25 005 618) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of work completed following a Disabled Facilities Grant. This is because the complaint is late. Devon County Council (25 006 310) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to issue Mrs X with a blue badge. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council's actions. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (25 006 208) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to investigate two of the four complaints made by Mr X concerning the care and direct payments relating to his partner, Ms Y. This is because we are unlikely to find sufficient evidence of fault and there may be a more suitable agency better placed. Kent County Council (24 012 991) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's actions when her son, Mr Y, had to move from supported residential accommodation. We have found fault because the Council was too slow to act in trying to find new accommodation and failed to adequately assess Mr Y's needs or provide sufficient information linked to his move. This caused Miss X and Mr Y significant avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise and make symbolic payments to Miss X and Mr Y. It will also provide reminders and guidance to relevant officers. North Lincolnshire Council (24 016 958) Summary: Ms Z, on behalf of her sister Mrs X, complained the Council failed to involve them in the assessment of her care needs, failed to provide timely and detailed information about the cost of the assessed care and failed to effectively communicate. The Council was at fault because it did not produce a personal budget and notify Mrs X until four months after the care started and charges were incurred causing distress. The Council has already offered a suitable financial remedy and has now agreed to service improvements and a repayment plan. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (24 020 423) Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it handled Mr X's complaint about its homelessness service. There is no evidence of improper complaint handling. Plymouth City Council (24 020 588) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaints about the care provided to her son, Mr Y, by Plymouth City Council. This is because the matters she is complaining about have been subject to court proceedings. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (25 002 727) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to properly explain Mr X's care charges. This is because it relates to events that took place more than 12 months ago and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to bring the complaint to us earlier. In addition, if we did exercise discretion to investigate the complaint, we would be unlikely to find fault with the Council's actions. Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (25 003 718) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's support to Mr Y (deceased). This is because the issues Miss X complained of are more than 12 months old and there are no good reasons why she did not complain sooner. We also would not be able to achieve what Miss X wants and there is another body better placed to consider part of her complaint. West Northamptonshire Council (25 003 984) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a direct payment. We are unlikely to achieve an outcome which would justify an investigation into the fault complained of. Praxis Care (25 004 776) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a member of staff bringing their children into work at a day centre providing care for adults. We cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks. Hertfordshire County Council (24 010 211) Summary: There were faults in the way the Council assessed Ms Y's needs and her son, Mr X's needs as her carer. There was also fault in the information it provided regarding direct payments and in the support provided by the Council commissioned care provider. There was no fault in the way the Council assessed Ms Y's contribution to her care charges. The Council and care provider have already taken action to prevent a recurrence of the fault and have already apologised to Mr X. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr X to acknowledge the uncertainty, frustration and additional support he was required to provide due to the Council's faults. London Borough of Haringey (24 011 148) Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of Mrs Y that the Council has not dealt properly with care charges. The Council is at fault because it did not respond to Mr X's concerns about charges between October 2023 and July 2024. The Council should apologise and provide a detailed explanation of charges. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (24 014 676) Summary: Ms C complained about the Council's failure to properly assess her needs, its communications with her and its failure to fully respond to her complaint. She also said the care agency did not meet her needs and she complained about the care worker's communications with her. We found fault in the Council's failure to respond to the complaint and the care agency's actions when Ms C had a fall. The Council has agreed to apologise, to pay a financial remedy and to implement a service improvement. Cambridgeshire County Council (24 016 850) Summary: There was a long delay in the Council issuing an invoice for care provided at home to Mrs C and this was fault. The agency that provided the care also often did not provide Mrs C with a wash, the care visits were short and the care plan should have been reviewed sooner. The Council has agreed to apologise, provide a financial remedy, carry out a review financial assessment and carry out service improvements. Somerset Council (25 002 427) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about whether the Council applied for pension credits on behalf of Mrs X. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Belmont Healthcare (Wombwell) Limited (25 003 609) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care provided to Ms X's father, because we would be unlikely to be able to achieve a worthwhile outcome. Lancashire County Council (25 003 910) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision about how a direct payment has been used. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Somerset Council (24 012 752) Summary: Mrs Y complained the Council delayed in providing the care and support her terminally ill husband needed. She also says the Council failed to ensure he had uninterrupted access to bathroom facilities following a mistake with the installation of a Council funded stairlift. We find there was delay by the Council in assessing Mr Y. We also find that errors with the stairlift installation caused avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment of £500 for the distress caused. Wokingham Borough Council (24 020 909) Summary: Ms A complained about the care provided to her father, and the related costs, which she said were unnecessary. Based on current evidence we consider the Council is at fault for its communication with Ms A. I have recommended it apologise to Ms A. I did not find fault in relation to the care costs complained of. London Borough of Redbridge (25 003 493) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about nuisance neighbours. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council's adult social care team who placed the neighbours at the property and is satisfied their needs are met there. We cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants to have the property closed and the neighbours moved. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome. Worcestershire County Council (24 013 950) Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council made a best interest decision for his brother, Mr Y, when it decided he did not have capacity to make decisions about his finances. The Council was at fault because it did not keep proper oversight when it referred Mr Y to a third-party financial appointee service. However, this did not cause any injustice. The Council will, however, review how it makes best interest decisions to prevent potential injustice to others who cannot manage their finances in future. The Council already apologised to Mr X for some wrong information it gave him when investigating his complaint, which is enough 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