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. Fylde Borough Council (25 001 285) Summary: We have upheld Ms X's complaint about poor communications by the Council in relation to works carried out under a disabled facilities grant. The Council has agreed to take appropriate action to remedy the uncertainty caused and to address Ms X's outstanding concerns about the quality of the work done. Leicestershire County Council (25 006 430) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about decisions the Council made about Mrs X's late mother's care support. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (25 006 701) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council handled Mr X's safeguarding referrals relating to his partner. The Court of Protection is involved to consider the substantive issues. We could not achieve a more meaningful outcome in relation to parts of the complaint that would be separable. Kent County Council (25 007 603) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about client contribution payments he made towards homecare he received between August 2020 and October 2021. This is because this complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise our discretion and investigate. Surrey County Council (25 007 620) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the support provided to Miss B by the Council. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate now. Staffordshire County Council (25 008 069) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision not to renew his organisational blue badge. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Blackburn with Darwen Council (24 012 497) Summary: Mrs C complained that the Council had significantly reduced her care and support hours without adequate justification, which was causing her and her husband significant distress and inconvenience. We found some fault in the second assessment in October 2024. But we also found that Mrs C has not taken up offers of reablement care to provide more evidence of her care and support needs. The Council has agreed to offer Mrs C a period of reablement care followed by a review of the assessment from October 2024. Leicestershire County Council (24 016 108) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her mother, Mrs Y, had suitable care at home. The Council was at fault. It was also at fault in how it decided that it would not take action to safeguard Mrs Y's welfare. The faults caused Mrs X significant distress and uncertainty, for which the Council will apologise and pay her £300. It will also issue a staff reminder to prevent similar fault in future. Staffordshire County Council (24 017 165) Summary: Ms C complains the Council has not assessed her care needs properly and Council commissioned care agencies were inadequate. There was no significant injustice caused by the care agencies commissioned by the Council and no fault in the Council's decision to reduce services. London Borough of Redbridge (24 017 686) Summary: Ms C complains the Council commissioned care provider, Bio Luminuex Healthcare Ltd, failed to provide suitable care and falsified records. Ms C also complains the Council failed to provide proper support for her mother, Mrs D, after she left a care home. The Council is at fault for failing to properly assess Mrs D's needs before she returned to the community and for inadequate services it commissioned. To put things right the Council has agreed to waive an existing invoice of over £1700, apologise to Mrs D and Ms C for the distress and frustration its actions caused; and make service improvements which include the quality monitoring of the care provider. Lancashire County Council (24 013 473) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision to charge his mother, Ms Y, for the care it provided to her. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons why Mr X did not complain sooner. Furthermore, it is unlikely we would find sufficient evidence of fault by the Council. West Northamptonshire Council (24 015 710) Summary: Ms X complained about a failure to complete a s117 aftercare plan before she left hospital or after she returned home. We found fault that a council and an NHS trust did not complete a s117 aftercare plan. This caused Ms X stress and frustration which is an injustice. Further, we found fault in the way the Trust handled Ms X's complaint which caused more injustice. The council and NHS trust agreed to apologise, take corrective action and make financial payments to address the injustice. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 016 923) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision on the Complainant's disabled facilities grant application. There is insufficient evidence of fault. Axelbond Limited (24 017 344) Summary: Mrs X complained about the care provided by the care home her father resided in before he passed away. We did not find fault with some aspects of how it handled her father's deterioration. We found fault with the care home's quality of daily case records and not appropriately recording reasons and evidence for specific decisions made when her father declined. This caused significant distress, frustration and uncertainty to Mrs X. The care home has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice, and improve its record keeping. Oxfordshire County Council (25 001 908) Summary: There was no fault in the Council's decision to include Mrs Y's property in its financial assessment for care fees because the Council followed statutory guidance in reaching the decision. Kent County Council (25 005 249) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision that Mrs Y deliberately deprived herself of assets. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Somerset Council (25 006 163) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's delay in securing social care support for Mrs X's son. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Hampshire County Council (25 006 508) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged debt owing to the Council for a disabled facilities grant given thirty years ago. The passage of time makes it difficult to investigate and reach a safe conclusion. However, based on the information that is available it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council. Cheshire East Council (25 007 169) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the council managed the care and treatment of Mr X's late relative, Mrs Y. This is because we cannot achieve anything for Mrs Y now and the injustice for Mr X is not significant enough to warrant our involvement. West Northamptonshire Council (25 007 616) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council followed its safeguarding procedures. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate now. Surrey County Council (25 007 850) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a Council-commissioned support service allegedly failing to provide reasonable adjustments for Mr X. He has begun court action about the matter, so the law says we cannot also consider it. Devon County Council (24 016 442) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to reimburse her with care costs it agreed to pay following the outcome of a previous complaint to us. Ms X also complained the Council has wrongly calculated a contribution towards her care costs she considered unaffordable for her. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council has dealt with the matter. So we have completed our investigation. Surrey County Council (24 020 735) Summary: Mr B complained the Council delayed financially assessing his mother, who I will refer to as Mrs C; gave him inaccurate financial information; and referred to mental capacity assessments as a formality. There was fault by the Council. It delayed allocating Mrs C's case for a care assessment to be carried out. Because of the fault, there was a short delay in Mrs C receiving funding from the Council after her finances fell below the upper capital limit. This caused distress and worry to Mr B. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B. It has also agreed to send us evidence of a review it has carried out of its case allocation processes, and evidence of training it has provided to staff about the Mental Capacity Act. East Sussex County Council (24 023 111) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has failed to properly complete Miss Y's financial assessment and give full consideration to her disability related expenditure (DRE). We found there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered whether the cost of the specialist toilet was DRE. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (25 003 200) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions relating to Mrs Y's welfare and residence. Mr X is not a suitable representative for complaints relating to Mrs Y's care and residence, and in any event these complaints have been considered in court. The Information Commissioner is best placed to consider complaints about the Council's decision not to share information. London Borough of Hackney (25 005 421) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a Council officer. We could not add to the findings the Council has already made and are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken. London Borough of Enfield (25 006 053) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about poor communication about adult social care fees. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken, and it is unlikely we would achieve anything further. The Council has accepted fault, apologised, and waived care fees. Durham County Council (25 006 651) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to charge Mrs Y for residential care services. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason to investigate it now. Royal Borough of Greenwich (25 007 149) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint that the Council failed to carry out a needs assessment or provide her with support. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve anything worthwhile because any safeguarding concerns would be investigated by the council for the area she lives in. London Borough of Islington (24 021 764) Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of Ms Y and Mr Z about the Council's handling of a reassessment of Ms Y's care needs. We find no fault in the Council's decision not to fund 24-hour care. However, we find fault in the significant delays in completing the reassessment and in providing assistive technology. As a result, Mr Z had to continue caring for Ms Y longer than he wished, causing him avoidable distress, uncertainty, and risk of harm. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms Y and Mr Z, arrange for the outstanding assistive technology to be installed, and assign a named social worker to oversee future care planning. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 000 854) Summary: We found fault with the Council failing to explain how Mrs X's reduced care package, following a care review, will meet her needs. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £250 for the avoidable distress, uncertainty and potential lost opportunity its fault caused. The Council agreed to complete a reassessment of Mrs X's needs and either explain how the proposed level of care meets her eligible needs, if it maintains the level of care outlined in the 2024 care and support plan, or produce a revised care and support plan. The Council also agreed to remind officers about the importance of providing suitable explanations to service users when reducing a person's personal budget and about how the new personal budget will meet their eligible needs. East Sussex County Council (25 004 464) Summary: Mr X complains about how a Council and NHS Trust provided care to his father and safeguarded both his father and his mother between 2022 and 2024. We cannot consider Mr X's complaints about events between 2022 and 2023 because these are late. We will not consider a complaint about how medication was used in 2024 because this is being considered by the coroner. Once the coroner's considerations are complete, Mr X can ask us to look at this part of the complaint. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 004 813) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint the Council delayed moving her daughter, Miss Y, from her children's residential placement to an adult one. Any outstanding injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation and our involvement would be unlikely to achieve anything meaningful. Wakefield City Council (25 005 928) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care Mr X's mother in law received at her care home before she passed away in September 2023. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to consider it now. Nottinghamshire County Council (25 006 215) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged late request for payment of care fees by the Council. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice to Mrs X to warrant our further involvement. Warrington Council (25 006 660) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's delay in completing its financial assessment of Mrs Y. This is because the delay has not caused significant enough injustice to justify our involvement. London Borough of Harrow (25 007 056) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to refuse to renew Mr X's blue badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Evedale Care Limited (25 011 429) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Care Provider's actions following his mother's death. The Care Provider investigated his concerns, upheld parts of the complaint, issued an apology, and took steps to improve its service. We could not add to the Care Provider's response by investigating the matter further. It is also reasonable for Mr X to report the missing items to the police and pursue a claim in court. Somerset Council (24 009 941) Summary: Mrs A complained about the care Somerset Council and Somerset NHS Foundation Trust provided to her daughter, Miss B, before her death. She complains the Council and Trust refused to provide funding for 24-hour care which Miss B needed, could not find Miss B a suitable care agency and tried to force the family to accept direct payments. Based on the evidence reviewed, we found no fault with the actions of the organisations. London Borough of Lewisham (24 011 790) Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council handled his brother, Mr C's, care. Mr X told us this impacted his mental and physical health. We have found no fault in the Council's actions. London Borough of Wandsworth (24 019 089) Summary: Mr Y complains the Council delayed in making Direct Payments available after he resumed his role as a carer. We find there was fault by the Council which caused distress to Mr Y. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment of £500. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (24 019 267) Summary: There was fault by the Council which issued an invoice for the late Mr Y's homecare for a period when he was in hospital. The Council has already taken some action to resolve the complaint by apologising and removing charges. It will also apologise, issue an itemised invoice and reduce the outstanding bill by £100 to reflect Ms X's avoidable distress. Doves Care Agency Ltd (24 022 048) Summary: Mr Y complained about how the Care Provider dealt with his late mother's, Mrs X's, care fees when she was admitted to hospital and how it handled his complaint. There were some faults by the Care Provider which caused injustice to Mr Y. The Care Provider should take action to remedy the injustice caused. Hartford Care (5) Limited (25 002 819) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about private residential care because we could not add to any previous investigation, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, and there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (25 005 283) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about works related to a disabled facilities grant and the handling of the complaint. Part of the complaint is late. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council on the remaining aspects which may be better addressed in court. And we will not investigate the complaint handling alone when we are not investigating the substantive complaint. West Sussex County Council (25 006 362) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with X's backdated direct payments because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (25 006 679) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Carer allegedly flushing away Mrs X's dentures. This is because the small claims court is best placed to consider the claim for the cost of replacement dentures. London Borough of Harrow (25 006 762) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council changed a person's care and support arrangements and then financially assessed the contribution towards care costs. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Manchester City Council (25 010 324) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to increase charges for its transport service. Mr X has not sustained a personal injustice due to this. In addition, an investigation would be unlikely to find fault in the Council's actions. 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