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. Lincolnshire County Council (24 008 517) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about how the Council supported her with her allotment tenancy. The Council has apologised for any delay in payment of fees. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Bath and North East Somerset Council (24 017 627) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has not dealt properly with Mr Y's adult social care, resulting in his needs not being met and causing distress. The Council is at fault because it did not take action to reduce identified risks as part of Mr Y's Care and Support plan before reducing his care provision. Mr Y suffered the risk of harm. The Council should apologise, pay Mr Y £250 and review Mr Y's case. Luton Borough Council (24 019 000) Summary: Ms X complained the Council has failed to properly investigate or take appropriate action in relation to safeguarding concerns raised in relation to Mrs Y. She also complained about poor communication and a failure to keep her informed. We found there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council responded to concerns about Mrs Y's wellbeing. However the Council's poor communication and failure to keep Ms X informed is fault. This fault has caused Ms X distress, worry and uncertainty. The Council will apologise and make a payment to remedy this injustice. Birmingham City Council (25 003 379) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions in a safeguarding report. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating and we cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X is seeking. Cheshire East Council (25 003 841) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of a disabled facilities grant application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant investigation. Leicestershire County Council (25 004 950) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement in a safeguarding enquiry, in which Mr X was the alleged perpetrator. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Other matters are best considered by the Information Commissioner. Westmorland and Furness Council (24 013 697) Summary: Ms X complains the Council did not properly investigate a safeguarding referral. She also complaints it delayed providing her with a copy of its report and communicated with her poorly. She says this caused her and her family avoidable and unnecessary distress. We find no fault with the Council's safeguarding investigation. We find fault with the Council's communication and delay providing Ms X with the report, which caused Ms X injustice. We are satisfied the action taken by the Council has remedied the injustice to Ms X. Care UK Community Partnerships Ltd (24 016 986) Summary: The care provider did not act promptly to ensure that Mr X's room was always clean and odour-free; in addition the care home manager suggested to Ms A (his daughter) that her complaint would affect his care. As a consequence Ms A moved her father from the home. The fault by the care provider caused injustice, and it will now make a suitable payment to recognise the distress its actions caused. London Borough of Bexley (24 017 773) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about bullying in supported living accommodation because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. London Borough of Wandsworth (24 019 903) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to send him copies of his father's Care and Support Plan, failed to provide any idea of costs for his care or complete financial assessments. Mr X also complained the care provider only provided single-handed care despite the Council billing for double-handed care. And, Mr X complained about how the Council handled his complaint and application of weekly administration charges to his father's billing without notice. We found fault with the Council in all aspects of Mr X's complaint which caused an injustice to Mr X and his father. The Council agreed to our recommendations. This included providing an apology and £1,000 payment to Mr X for the distress, frustration and lost opportunity caused by the Council's fault and removal of the care arrangement fees up to 27 September 2024. The Council also agreed to provide a breakdown of the billing and a list of care visits completed to Mr X. And, the Council agreed to ensure the information in its policy and on its website was consistent and to remind staff to provide Care and Support Plans to service users, to complete financial assessments in a suitable timescale and to provide early information about the care arrangement fees to service users. London Borough of Enfield (24 021 742) Summary: The Council delayed assessing Mrs Y's contribution to her care charges which resulted in a large debt accruing. It sent an inaccurate letter stating she was to pay the full cost due to her level of savings which caused her distress. It also delayed responding to her daughter, Ms X's, complaint which caused frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise, make payments and offer a repayment plan to acknowledge the impact of its fault. It will also review its procedures to ensure it follows up financial assessments and that letters accurately reflect the situation. London Borough of Sutton (24 022 631) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to allow Mr X to be reimbursed from Mrs Y's direct payment funds. This is because the complaint is late. Brentwood Borough Council (25 004 035) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's management of Mrs X's requested adaptations. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to lead to finding fault with the Council's actions. Warrington Council (25 004 444) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker when Mr X was approaching discharge from hospital. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigation. London Borough of Brent (25 004 861) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care assessments and not being eligible for support. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's process, so we cannot challenge the Council's eligibility decision even though the complainant disagrees with it. The Council has apologised for communication errors and has offered a further assessment. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken and it is unlikely we could achieve anything further. London Borough of Hounslow (24 017 677) Summary: Ms B complained an NHS Trust and a Council were wrong to decide her father was not eligible for reablement care when he left hospital. She also complained that they did not involve the family adequately in the discharge process. We have not found fault in how the organisations made their decisions or how they involved the family. However, we have found fault in how the organisations handled Ms B's complaint. We have asked the Trust and the Council to apologise for the impact this had. Lincolnshire County Council (24 017 887) Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not carry out his mother, Mrs Y's, Care Plan correctly. Mr X says this caused himself and Mrs Y distress. We have found fault in the Council's actions for failing to attend one call or attend for full call times, correctly follow its procedure for keeping records and ensure staff acted professionally. The Council has agreed to write to Mr X to apologise for the distress caused to him. London Borough of Hackney (24 018 714) Summary: The Council failed to meet some of Miss X's eligible care needs, causing Miss X distress and frustration. The Council also delayed carrying out a review of Miss X's needs, causing Miss X's sister, Ms Y, uncertainty and frustration. The Council was entitled to suspend Miss X's direct payments but has since failed to resolve the issues which led to the suspension. The Council should apologise to Miss X and Ms Y, make a payment to Miss X, and decide how it will meet her needs following a mental capacity assessment. Norfolk County Council (24 020 292) Summary: Mr X complained the Council provided incorrect and misleading information about funding his mother's residential care. We found the Council at fault because of poor communication and delay which caused avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr X and take action to improve its service. Worcestershire County Council (24 020 635) Summary: Mrs B complained on behalf of her father, Mr C that the Council had failed to make reasonable adjustments to ensure Mr C could read and understand financial information about his care costs, despite knowing he had a visual impairment. We found fault in the Council's actions which meant Mr C did not understand he had to pay his care costs allowing a large debt to build up over nearly two years. This caused Mr C uncertainty and distress and Mrs B distress on receiving the invoice. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and Mr C, make symbolic payments to them both and improve its procedures for the future. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 023 364) Summary: There was fault by the Council in the late Mrs Y's care in one of its care homes. The care home did not consult with Mrs Y's GP to see if her medicine could be administered to her covertly and her care plans did not include detailed information about how to deliver personal and oral care in her best interests. This caused Mrs Y avoidable distress which cannot now be remedied as she has died. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to her daughter Ms X (and for other family members) to recognise her distress in witnessing her mother receiving poor care. The Council will take action to minimise the risk of recurrence. North Yorkshire Council (25 003 551) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about money Mrs X says was stolen from her uncle, Mr X, by a carer. The courts are best placed to consider the matter. Durham County Council (25 005 057) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an allegation a care provider arranged by the Council made against Mrs B. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Dorset Council (25 005 093) Summary: We will not investigate Ms Y's complaint about a welfare check performed by the Council. This is because we consider she has not suffered a significant personal injustice. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (25 005 770) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council providing insufficient support to Ms X and its communication with her daughter. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating. Norfolk County Council (24 013 106) Summary: Mrs X complained her sister, Mrs Y, is in an unsuitable care home for her needs. She said the Council would not discuss Mrs Y's care and support needs with her despite there being no authorised person to represent Mrs Y's health and welfare decision making. We found there was avoidable delay sharing information with Mrs X because the Council did not confirm deputyship for Mrs Y's health and welfare when it carried out a review. This caused Mrs X some frustration. However, we did not find fault in the Council's decision-making or that the care home was unsuitable. Croft House Care Home Limited (24 015 027) Summary: We have found that there was fault as the care home failed to properly plan Mrs B's father's care, it failed to carry out the necessary risk assessments after her father suffered falls and it failed to respond to complaints relating to the matters. The Home has agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy and has carried out service improvements. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 006 767) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about a community car scheme because it lies outside our jurisdiction. This is because the matter complained about is not an administrative function of the Council. East Sussex County Council (25 007 800) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant's application for a Blue Badge. This is because the Council will offer the complainant a face-to-face mobility assessment. Medway Council (24 015 481) Summary: Mrs X complains on behalf of her late mother-in-law, Mrs Y, the council failed to take into account her rent and bills when calculating charges for her care home. Mrs X says Mrs Y does not have enough funds to cover the fees being requested by the Council. Mrs X says this has caused the family distress. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for delay in confirming what information it needed to complete the financial assessment. The Council has agreed to issue an apology, discuss the information it needs to complete the assessment and completes service improvements. West Sussex County Council (24 017 495) Summary: Ms C complains the Council failed to provide services to meet her family's needs. The Council is at fault for failing to record actions and complete a carer's assessment. This has caused uncertainty and frustration to Ms C. To put things right the Council will apologise to Ms C, make her a symbolic payment, reassess her needs as a carer and make service improvements. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (24 018 192) Summary: Mr B complained the Council reclaimed surplus direct payment funds from his son, Mr C's, direct payment account which left him without respite support. He also complained the Council told the family they could no longer use their respite provider as they did not have a Care Quality Commission (CQC) registration. There was fault by the Council. The Council did not ensure annual reviews were carried out for Mr C's direct payment account. Because of the fault, Mr B and Mr C suffered distress and uncertainty while the Council investigated matters and carried out a review of Mr C's direct payment account. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and Mr C, make symbolic payments, and issue staff briefings. London Borough of Enfield (24 020 044) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council carrying out a care assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement. Essex County Council (25 001 119) Summary: Mrs A complains about the way the Council, Trust, ICB and GP surgery treated her husband, Mr B, before his death. She complains Continuing Healthcare (CHC) funding was delayed and the family were not given enough information. We will not investigate this complaint because we cannot overturn a decision made by the ICB about CHC. For her other points of complaint, an Ombudsmen investigation is unlikely to find fault. Cornwall Council (25 001 196) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care at home. The Council has apologised and acted to improve service. We are satisfied with these actions, and it is unlikely we would achieve anything further. London Borough of Harrow (25 002 500) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's handling of a safeguarding referral because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement. London Borough of Lewisham (25 003 265) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council-commissioned Care Provider at this time. There is an ongoing coroner's inquest. Until the inquest is complete, we could not come to sound conclusions or achieve a meaningful outcome. East Sussex County Council (25 003 869) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in the Council assessing Ms Y's needs and finances. It is unlikely that further investigation would achieve a different outcome. It is open to Mrs X to complain separately about subsequent events. Hampshire County Council (25 004 149) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's involvement with her and its refusal to delete her records. There is insufficient evidence of fault and the Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider a complaint about management of records. Hampshire County Council (25 004 413) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about negative information Mr B said the Council recorded about him. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (23 015 231) Summary: Ms X complained about diabetes management and care provided to the late Mr Y, when he went into respite care, during his admissions to hospital, and then a nursing home. We found fault by the Trust in its record keeping and monitoring of Mr Y. The Trust acknowledged this in its response to Ms X's complaint and put service improvements in place. The Trust agreed to provide a further remedy to Ms X to recognise the distress and uncertainty caused. We also found fault by Priory Adult Care in its management of Mr Y's diabetes. Priory Adult Care agreed to provide a remedy to Ms X. We did not find fault by the Council, Trust and ICB in changes to Mr Y's care plan for his respite placement, or in the Care Home's management of Mr Y's diabetes. North Lincolnshire Council (24 019 958) Summary: Miss G is complaining about the care provided to her mother, Mrs H, by North Lincolnshire Council and Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust in 2024. We will not investigate Miss G's complaint. This is because an investigation by the Ombudsmen would be unlikely to add to the work the Trust has already undertaken to investigate Miss G's concerns. 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