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. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (24 011 583) Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of Mr Y that Care South, on behalf of the Council, failed to deal with adult social care properly, causing distress. Care South did not fully satisfy the conditions in Mr Y's Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) or follow its complaints process properly. Mr X suffered delay. Care South has apologised for a delay in its complaints process. The Council should apologise to Mr X and pay Mr X £200 for avoidable distress. Worcestershire County Council (24 018 517) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about not receiving any care and support services at home for four days. This is because we could not add to the investigation already carried out by the Council. London Borough of Newham (24 023 491) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint that an officer of the Council imposed her own views during a carer's meeting and made fun of Miss X. This is because the injustice complained of is not significant enough to warrant an investigation. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (25 000 323) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's decision not to provide her with a home care package. She said the Council relied on incorrect information in making this decision. The Council was not at fault. It carried out Mrs X's social care and needs assessment in line with relevant law and policy. Surrey County Council (25 003 962) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a best interests decision which determined where Miss B's son should live. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Manchester City Council (25 004 867) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charging for adult social care. We are satisfied with the action the Council has taken to waive outstanding charges. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further. Shropshire Council (25 005 709) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint that the Council requested she pay back an historic debt for care she says she either did not receive or which she considered sub-standard. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Kent County Council (25 005 850) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint the Council refused him a Blue Badge. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 006 475) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision to refuse him a Blue Badge. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (25 007 109) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council social worker told a family member that he had provided information to the Council about the family member's personal circumstances without their consent. This is because the Council has already apologised to Mr X and arranged training for the staff member involved. We consider this to be a sufficient remedy to this complaint. Milton Keynes Council (23 020 425) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's failure to provide respite care for her disabled child. We found the Council to be at fault because it failed to properly consider the issue. There was also fault with the Council's complaint handling. To remedy the distress and uncertainty caused by its faults, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and take action to improve its service. Halton Borough Council (24 017 538) Summary: Miss X complains about the way Halton Borough Council, NHS Cheshire and Merseyside ICB and Sense managed her son, Mr X's, specialist care package. We found fault by Sense in relation to communication. We found fault in the ICB's complaint handling. As a result, Mr X and Miss X have been caused distress, frustration and uncertainty. The ICB and Sense have agreed to apologise to Mr X and Miss X. Sense will also pay a financial remedy. London Borough of Haringey (24 019 142) Summary: The Council was at fault for severe delays in adapting Mrs X's property to meet the needs of her two disabled children. This caused Mrs X to move out of her home for longer than expected and live in a home where she could not meet her children's care needs. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X to recognise the distress, uncertainty and frustration caused by its failings. It will also develop an action plan to complete the remaining work. London Borough of Bromley (24 020 888) Summary: Mr X, complained of the Council's handling of his mother's, Mrs X's, care package. The Council provided Mrs X with a copy of the financial assessment letter including the personal budget without delay so it was not at fault. It also cancelled the care package when requested without fault. However, the Council was at fault for overcharging Mrs X for the hours of care she received and failed to provide Mrs X with a copy of the estimated personal budget. The Council has agreed to reimburse Mrs X the money it overcharged her by to remedy the injustice caused. London Borough of Barnet (25 000 135) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's action in dealing with Mr X. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement. Bennett Homecare Limited (25 004 598) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a carer towards a patient's partner. This is because we have no power to investigate complaints about actions in relation to care commissioned and funded by the National Health Service. Wakefield City Council (25 004 832) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about communication from an adult social care social worker. This is because there is not a significant enough injustice to justify our involvement. Oakland Care (25 005 414) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint, made on behalf of the late Mr Y, about the Care Provider's delay in using a pain relief medicine during Mr Y's end-of-life care. There is not enough evidence the Care Provider's actions led to the injustices complained of to warrant us investigating. North Lincolnshire Council (25 006 146) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with Mrs B's mother's property and financial affairs and decided to place her in a care home. We cannot add to any previous investigation by the Council. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Shropshire Council (25 002 279) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's delay in completing its financial care assessment for Mrs X and its decision to charge for care services from the date they started. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault on the central point and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Roxhsana Ltd (25 003 772) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint, brought by Mr Y, about the Care Provider forging signatures on a care contract document and how it investigated the matter. There is insufficient significant injustice to justify us investigating and we cannot achieve the complaint outcome sought. London Borough of Hillingdon (25 004 303) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint, brought by Mrs Y, about the Council not. There is not enough evidence of Council fault in its decision-making process to warrant us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome sought from the complaint. London Borough of Lambeth (25 005 339) Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about defects to grant-aided works carried out in 2021. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Miss X could not have complained to us sooner. Buckinghamshire Council (25 006 620) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to renew Mr X's Blue Badge. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. West Northamptonshire Council (25 005 910) Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the conduct of the Council's social workers in 2023. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner. Gloucestershire County Council (24 019 290) Summary: There was fault by the Council. The Council sent contradictory letters which caused confusion on whether the Council would fund a care home placement. This meant the transition from Council funded to self-funded care was not well managed and the complainants were not given the option of the Council managing the care, with the complainants paying the full cost. Reviewing the procedures to ensure they comply with the Care Act 2014 and paying the care home fees owed once the upper capital threshold would have been reached remedies the injustice caused. London Borough of Enfield (25 002 395) Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it handled Mrs X's application for a disabled parking badge. It considered the information available, processed the application and appeal in accordance with the government's best practice guidance and made a decision which, in the circumstances, was not obviously unreasonable. As there was no procedural fault in how the Council dealt with Mrs X's application and appeal, we cannot question its decision. Essex County Council (25 005 315) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to ask for a client contribution towards care and support costs. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (25 005 569) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failures in adult social care process to appoint a representative. The Council apologised for the impact of its fault and redid the process. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken and it is unlikely we would add anything further or reach a different outcome. 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