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. East Sussex County Council (24 014 845) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council wrongly charging Ms Y for her care and support. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons why he did not complain sooner. Lincolnshire County Council (24 020 313) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint further. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants or link the injustice he claims to the actions of the Council and its commissioned care provider. Gain Healthcare Ltd (24 022 869) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Care Provider failing to meet her neighbour's needs. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Care Provider and the injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation. Dorset Council (24 023 307) Summary: The Council acknowledged failings in the way it dealt with the assessment and care planning for Miss Y before the involvement of this office, but it failed to provide an adequate remedy for the injustice caused to Miss Y and her mother. Herefordshire Council (25 003 516) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2010. There is not enough evidence of fault. The Council considered the request, explained its reason to refuse, and offered an alternative. The Ombudsman cannot decide the Council has breached the Equality Act, the complainant can make a claim of disability discrimination to court. Devon County Council (25 005 133) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Occupational Therapist (OT) assigned to her mother, Ms M. We have already considered these matters and determined they are inseparable from matters considered by the Courts. We will also not investigate Ms X's complaint the Council refused to change Ms M's social worker. The Council has already assigned a new social worker to her. Further investigation would achieve nothing more. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 005 982) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to progress a disabled facilities grant application. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement. London Borough of Lambeth (24 010 904) Summary: Miss X complains on behalf of Mrs Y that the Council did not deal properly with a safeguarding investigation. The Council didn't properly communicate with Miss X about what was being investigated. Miss X suffered uncertainty and avoidable distress. The Council should apologise to Miss X and pay Miss X £200. Aria Healthcare Group LTD (24 016 922) Summary: Ms X complained the Care Provider failed to deduct funded nursing care payments from the cost of her relative Ms Y's care since 2019. The complaint is late as it was not made to us within 12 months of Ms X or Ms Y becoming aware of the issue. And there is no good reason for the lateness. So we ended the investigation. Westminster City Council (24 017 924) Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not meet her late grandfather's communication needs when its social workers visited him in hospital. Miss X also complained the Council did not explain her late grandfather's communication needs to the hospital. Miss X says the Council's actions caused avoidable distress to her grandfather and negatively impacted her own wellbeing. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to provide an apology and a financial remedy and review its processes regarding the provision of communication support to deaf service users. Leicestershire County Council (24 018 090) Summary: Mrs X complains on behalf of Mr and Mrs Y that the Council has not dealt with adult social care properly, causing avoidable distress and Mr and Mrs Y's needs not being met. The Council is at fault because Mrs X was not informed about bathing issues, Mr and Mrs Y missed some care and the Care Provider did not respond to the complaint properly. Mrs X suffered avoidable distress and had to provide some care to Mr and Mrs Y. Mr and Mrs Y suffered a lack of care. The Council should apologise to Mrs X and Mr and Mrs Y. West Sussex County Council (24 018 266) Summary: Mr B says the Council delayed invoicing him for outstanding client contributions. There is evidence the Council delayed telling Mr B about some of the arrears due but for the rest there is no evidence Mr B told the Council he had received a backdated benefit award. The Council failed to complete an annual financial assessment in 2023 and failed to consider whether to exercise its discretion to waive or reduce the arrears. The Council's failures caused Mr B distress and left him with arrears. An apology to Mr B, agreement to write off some of the arrears and consideration of what to do with the remaining arrears is satisfactory remedy. Wiltshire Council (24 023 062) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council taking her money and wrongly accusing her friend of abusing her. This is because the complaint is closely related to her concerns which are being addressed by the Court of Protection. It is not in our jurisdiction to investigate relative matters which are subject to legal proceedings. Essex County Council (25 004 812) Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X's complaint about the Council's decision to charge them an assessed contribution towards their care. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. London Borough of Bexley (25 005 868) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council-commissioned Care Provider having arranged for Mrs Y to receive a vaccination. We could not achieve a meaningful outcome by doing so. North Northamptonshire Council (25 005 962) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's response to her request for a care needs assessment. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation. London Borough of Camden (25 006 036) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the alleged preventable death of Mr X's adult son (Mr Y) while in the care of the Council. Only the Coroner can determine the circumstances around Mr Y's death. The Information Commissioner is best placed to consider a complaint about the Council's information-sharing. London Borough of Ealing (25 006 042) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged failure of the Council to assess and safeguard Mr X for several years up to 2024. Investigation would be unlikely to establish a causal link between the actions of the Council, and the injustice Mr X complains of. The Council has also already offered Mr X an assessment, and we would be unlikely to recommend more than this. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (25 006 199) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint the Council has charged for her late father's care placement. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement. In addition, there is no remaining significant injustice caused by fault in the Council delaying completing a financial assessment. London Borough of Newham (25 006 239) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's choice of residential placement for Mr X or its communication with Miss Y about the matter. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Leicestershire County Council (25 006 608) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's placement of Mr X's relative in a care home. The Council's decision was considered in the Court of Protection. We have no power to consider matters decided in court. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (25 006 693) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council carried out a care needs assessment. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. West Sussex County Council (25 006 741) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the council's delay in carrying out a financial assessment. investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Surrey County Council (24 017 593) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide advocacy for him as part of his care assessment and planning and failed to provide him with suitable care and support. The Council was not at fault. Telford & Wrekin Council (24 017 799) Summary: Mrs Y complains about the way the Council financially assessed her adult daughter, Miss W, who has care and support needs. She said the Council did not consider Miss W's monthly outgoings. The Council made an error with its assessment of Miss W's benefit entitlement but corrected this and apologised. There is no other fault in the financial assessment. The Council also delayed in acknowledging Mrs Y's complaint but has apologised for this which is an appropriate remedy. Shropshire Council (24 019 593) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about invoices the Council sent for residential care fees after Mr B's mother died in December 2021. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate now. Birmingham City Council (24 021 713) Summary: Ms X complained about her late relative Mrs Y's care in a council-funded care home placement. We found fault by the care home which acted for the Council. It failed to involve Ms X or the family with Mrs Y's care planning and failed to tell them about one of two falls. This was poor communication causing avoidable distress for which this Council will apologise. Buckinghamshire Council (25 001 259) Summary: Mx X complained the Council cancelled their Care and Support Plan after 6 months despite no positive change in their circumstances leaving them with unmet care needs. We found no fault with the Council. Medway Council (25 005 930) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care and support received by the complainant's late husband between 2022 and 2023 and about invoices for care contributions the Council sent. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate now. Leeds City Council (25 005 961) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of care in a care home and the Council's related actions. We cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X seeks. London Borough of Merton (25 006 526) Summary: We will not investigate the Council's handling of Mr X's request the Council should reimburse him for the care arranged for his late relative. This is because we could not add to the investigation already carried out by the Council. Luton Borough Council (25 007 420) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council delayed issuing a carer's direct payment. The Council has apologised and taken steps to prevent a recurrence of the matter. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (24 014 862) Summary: We found fault by Broadoak Manor Care Home (acting on behalf of St Helen's Metropolitan Borough Council) in the care it provided to Mrs X. This caused her husband, Mr X, distress and uncertainty. The Council will apologise and take action to prevent similar problems occurring in future. Cheshire West & Chester Council (24 016 212) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to complete a financial assessment and confirm the care contribution before it started his mother's care and support package. He also complained the Council has refused to cancel the care package despite repeated requests from him and his mother. We find the Council was at fault for its delay in completing the financial assessment. This caused avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and his mother and implement a service improvement. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (24 016 294) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's handling of becoming his appointee and how it communicated and supported him in the process. He said as a result he experienced distress and uncertainty. We found fault by the Council for causing some delay, communicating poorly, and its complaints handling was unclear. The Council did take steps to mitigate the appointee process's impact on Mr X. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the injustice Mr X experienced. It will also carry out a service improvement recommendation. London Borough of Croydon (24 020 730) Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed providing his son with respite care when he transitioned from children to adult services. We find the Council was at fault for the delay in securing suitable respite care for Mr X's son. This caused distress and upset, and Mr X's son lost out on care he was entitled to. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and his son, make payments to them and implement a service improvement. Nottinghamshire County Council (24 021 386) Summary: There was fault in the care provided to Mrs D, particularly in relation to falls prevention, record keeping and keeping Mrs D safe from other residents. This has caused an injustice and the Council has agreed to apologise, reduce the invoice and carry out a service improvement. North Northamptonshire Council (25 002 381) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a deferred payment arrangement as there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice to justify an investigation. Lancashire County Council (25 005 085) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to include a 50% share in a property as capital when completing a financial assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Wiltshire Council (25 005 677) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an error in the Council's bill for Mr X's father's care fees. This is because the Council has accepted its error, provided an explanation and apologised under its own complaints procedure. We would not achieve more than this if we were to investigate. Essex County Council (25 006 439) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to act on safeguarding concerns about Miss X's late grandmother. The Council has already acknowledged it missed opportunities to escalate those concerns and committed to improving its safeguarding strategies. Further investigation is unlikely to achieve anything more. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (25 009 187) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint that an officer of the Council made defamatory comments about Miss X. This is because the injustice complained of is not significant enough to warrant an investigation. The Council has also apologised to Miss X and reminded staff to be more measured in their communications. We consider this to be a sufficient remedy to this complaint. Salford City Council (23 014 128) Summary: There was fault in the way the Council's care planning and in the provision of care and support. Therefore, Mr B may not have received all the care and support he may have been entitled to. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B, pay him a small financial remedy and carry out a service improvement. West Sussex County Council (24 012 699) Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed invoicing for Mrs Y and her late husband's care, and gave no explanation or context for the charges. Mr X said the Council is failing to meet the communication needs of vulnerable client groups. There was fault causing injustice when the Council delayed and incorrectly completed Mrs Y's financial assessment, and when it failed to give her clear and timely charging information. The Council will complete a financial re-assessment and provide Mrs Y a symbolic financial remedy for the avoidable distress suffered. East Sussex County Council (24 017 449) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the care and support the Council provided to his late father, Mr Y. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons why Mr X did not complain sooner. West Sussex County Council (24 022 356) Summary: Miss Z on behalf of her mother, Mrs X, complained the Council failed to provide information about the cost of a care home, delayed in completing the financial assessment and sending an invoice and then wrongly assessed Ms X's savings. There is no fault in the Council's calculations but it did delay completing this. The apology already provided by the Council is a suitable remedy. Nottingham City Council (25 000 927) Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mrs Y's complaint about the social care service her adult son received. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, or significant injustice to Mrs Y's son, to justify any further action. Sheffield City Council (25 002 630) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the support provided to his daughter, Mrs Y, by Sheffield City Council and NHS South Yorkshire Integrated Care Board. This is because we consider it unlikely an investigation could achieve anything further then Mr X has already achieved by pursuing a complaint with the Council. Royal Borough of Greenwich (25 002 977) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council followed its safeguarding procedures. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Liverpool City Council (25 003 024) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision-making and care assessments. The Council carried out the assessments in line with legislation. There is no evidence of administrative fault in how it reached those decisions. The Council's later involvement with the Court of Protection means part of the complaint is outside our jurisdiction. London Borough of Redbridge (25 003 363) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to carry out an assessment of transport needs before making a decision to withdraw transport. The Council has already offered a remedy in line with our guidance and our involvement would not add anything to this investigation. North Northamptonshire Council (25 003 459) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about how the Council dealt with his safeguarding concerns about his brother. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. London Borough of Ealing (25 003 502) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments for her. There is nothing worthwhile to be achieved through our investigation. Leeds City Council (25 005 209) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care charges because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, and we are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken in this complaint. Durham County Council (25 005 328) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care in a care home, and when to seek medical advice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. The care provider acting for the council sought medical advice and acted on it. City of Wolverhampton Council (25 005 398) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council communicated with Mr X about his mother's care fees. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. London Borough of Lambeth (25 005 707) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a failure to provide him with information about disabled facilities grants. Any injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement. Surrey County Council (25 005 762) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about hearing aids going missing in a care home. It is unlikely we could achieve anything worthwhile or achieve the outcome requested as missing personal possessions are matters for insurers or the police. Royal Borough of Greenwich (25 006 024) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council not providing laminate flooring. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. West Sussex County Council (25 011 432) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's decision not to apply a property disregard because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making process to justify our involvement. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (24 020 449) Summary: We will not investigate a council and care homes over the care of Mr X, Mrs X's husband. Mrs X says the faults in care led to her husband's death and for distress for her. There were faults admitted by the council and care homes. However, both organisations have taken action to prevent the faults happening for other care home residents. An investigation would be unlikely to find the faults caused Mr X's death or achieve more for Mrs X than the work the council and care homes have already carried out. 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