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. Surrey County Council (24 018 928) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's safeguarding enquiries relating to Mrs X's daughter, Ms Y. We already investigated parts of the complaint. Some parts are late and there is not a good reason for Mrs X's delay in bringing these matters to us. Complaints about the Council's data-handling are best considered by the Information Commissioner. We could not achieve a meaningful outcome by investigating the remaining parts of the complaint. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (24 018 961) Summary: Mrs B complained about the standard of care her mother, Mrs X, received when the Council organised a placement at Lakeside View Care Home. We uphold the complaint, having identified several areas of fault with the care provided to Mrs X, and inaccurate care records. There was also fault with the Council's response to Mrs B's complaint because it failed to acknowledge the distress caused by the Care Home's actions. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment. Essex County Council (25 000 645) Summary: Mr C complained about the way the Council carried out a safeguarding investigation about an incident involving his son, Mr D at a care facility. We found fault with the Council: it delayed excessively in completing the investigation, notifying Mr C of the outcome and its communication with him was poor throughout. The Council has offered to pay Mr C £500 and has improved its procedures for the future. Norfolk County Council (25 000 699) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care in a residential care home. This is because it is unlikely we would add to previous investigations or reach a different outcome. Southampton City Council (25 006 087) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged damage to a wardrobe, care calls being cut short and quality of care. Complaints about damage to property are for the courts. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the quality of care complaints. The Council has agreed to take action in relation to the complaint about care calls being cut short. London Borough of Hackney (25 006 991) Summary: Mr C complains the Council and Trust failed to provide him with suitable care, respond to calls, and support him with his direct payments. We will not investigate the complaint as some of the complaints are late. The Council has acted to remedy other complaints and complete a new review. Further investigation by us would therefore not be proportionate. Medway Council (25 007 147) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to conduct a safeguarding investigation concerning Ms X. This is because there is insufficient fault to warrant an investigation. Westminster City Council (25 007 353) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's adult safeguarding involvement in relation to Ms Y's proposed marriage. The law prevents us from considering matters that have been considered in court. West Northamptonshire Council (25 007 480) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint the Council provided contradictory information about his direct payment. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. London Borough of Ealing (25 010 257) Summary: We upheld Mrs X's complaint about the Council's decision to refuse her Blue Badge application. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint by completing a review with information provided at appeal. St Marys Care Services Ltd (24 020 786) Summary: St Marys Care Services Ltd was at fault for failing to provide Mrs X's late mother with suitable care while she was resident in one of its care homes. The fault caused Mrs X distress and uncertainty for which the Care Provider will apologise and make a symbolic payment. To prevent similar fault in future, the Care Provider will issue staff reminders. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (24 022 114) Summary: We upheld a complaint made by Mr D about how the Council considered his request for support with adaptations to his home to benefit his disabled child. We found the Council wrongly refused to consider awarding a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) based on the cost of the proposed adaptations. While we could not say the adaptations would have necessarily proceeded, this fault resulted in avoidable delay and uncertainty for Mr D. The Council accepted these findings and agreed to remedy Mr D's injustice as we recommended. This will include reviewing its decision. It will also improve its approach to considering high-cost adaptations to prevent a repeat. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (25 006 614) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about the actions of a social worker. That is because the matters he complaints about have been subject to court proceedings. Liberty House Clinic Limited (25 010 112) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about the Care Provider's decision not to issue a full refund after it decided his son, Mr Y, needed to be discharged immediately, within 24 hours of admission for treatment. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is not made about actions that involve, or are connected to, the provision of adult social care. We have no discretion to consider it. Aria Healthcare Group LTD (25 020 404) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a care home declining to allow Mrs X to visit a resident. The resident is represented by her family and there is no evidence they or she wishes Mrs X to visit. Investigation would be unlikely to serve any worthwhile purpose. West Sussex County Council (24 008 913) Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council's decision to reduce night time support. We found the Council to be at fault because it took too long to carry out a review of their care and support needs. This caused distress and uncertainty. To remedy this injustice, the Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr and Mrs X. We did not find fault with the decision about the level of care. London Borough of Camden (24 018 819) Summary: Mrs B complained about how the Council carried out a care assessment and awarded direct payments and raised concerns about the Council billing her for services she did not receive, failing to take account of her reasonable adjustments and delay considering her complaint. The Council delayed completing the care assessment and putting in place direct payments, wrongly billed Ms B for services she did not receive and delayed considering her complaint. There is no evidence of fault in other areas of the complaint. Ms B has experienced distress and missed out on care support. An apology, payment to Ms B, a further financial assessment, care plan review and training for officers is satisfactory remedy. West Sussex County Council (24 020 078) Summary: The Council was at fault for delaying carrying out a financial assessment of Mr Y's care charges. This has left Mr Y with a significant debt. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council agreed to apologise and write off Mr Y's debt for care charges until October 2024. Azure Charitable Foundation (25 000 666) Summary: We did not find fault with Azure Charitable Foundation for cancelling Mr Z's provision of care. We found fault with Azure Charitable Foundation for failing to share its complaint process and a copy of Mr Z's contract or service user guide with Miss X, Mr Z's relative. This did not cause a significant personal injustice to either Miss X or Mr Z. Hertfordshire County Council (25 001 165) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care because it is unlikely we would add to the care provider's investigation or reach a different outcome. The care provider accepted fault, apologised for the distress caused, and acted to improve future service. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider concerns about breach of personal data. Topsham Care Limited (25 001 620) Summary: Mrs B complained about the way in which the care Provider had terminated its contract with her late mother (Mrs D) after a hospital stay. Mrs B was given very little notice to find an alternative placement. We found some injustice. The Care Provider has agreed to apologise to Mrs B, make a symbolic payment to her and has changed the terms of its contract to include this emergency scenario. Surrey County Council (25 008 967) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an invoice the Council sent to the complainant to reclaim an overpayment of direct payments. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate now. Durham County Council (25 009 466) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council commissioned Care Home providing poor care and support to her late husband, Mr X. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons why Mrs X did not complain sooner. Swindon Borough Council (24 014 388) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's handling of her late mother's care. We found fault because the Council was too slow to begin assessment and planning processes, too slow to share care cost information and did not always follow up on actions or effectively communicate with Mrs X. This caused her avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to her. London Borough of Wandsworth (25 004 405) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council not properly considering his parents' care and support needs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and we could not add to the previous investigation by the Council. Blackpool Borough Council (25 005 336) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint, brought by Mr Y, about the Council incorrectly sending her a letter about care fees for her late parents, and the Council's data management. Investigation would not achieve a different outcome. We cannot achieve the data management outcome Mr Y seeks. There is no good reason for us to investigate the Council's use of data as the Information Commissioner's Office is the body better placed to consider this. Suffolk County Council (25 008 384) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about payment for adult social care. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's decision making. Aria Healthcare Group LTD (25 008 929) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care provided to residents in a care home. We have no consent for Mrs X to represent any resident living in the home. Investigation of the only matter relating directly to Mrs X would be unlikely to lead to any worthwhile outcome. Cornwall Council (25 008 934) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about his daughter's social care. The Complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate now. Cornwall Council (25 008 936) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about social care. The Complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate now. Lancashire County Council (25 010 361) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about how the Council carried out a financial assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. GCH (Alder) Ltd (25 017 764) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Care Provider's decision to increase nursing home care fees. The nursing home placement is funded by an Integrated Care Board. We cannot consider complaints which could be considered by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. Cornwall Council (25 009 071) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council treating money given by Mrs X to her daughter Miss X as deprivation of assets intended to avoid care home fees. Investigation would be unlikely to lead to a finding of fault. East Sussex County Council (24 023 110) Summary: The Council failed to properly assess Mr X's care needs in 2024 leading to a wrongful reduction in his support package. Consequently, Mr X missed out on services to which he was entitled to receive. It also delayed in dealing with complaints about this. 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