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. Bracknell Forest Council (24 021 270) Summary: The Council has provided satisfactory evidence why it delayed in notifying the housing provider that the late Mr A would not return to his tenancy. Brighton & Hove City Council (24 023 029) Summary: The Council was not at fault in relation to the care and support it provided to Mr X, and for later withdrawing that care. North Somerset Council (25 010 125) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to fund a profiling bed following an occupational therapy assessment for aids and adaptations. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Central Bedfordshire Council (25 010 771) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision to refuse his application for a blue badge. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council. Devon County Council (24 011 249) Summary: Mr Y complains the Council failed to replace a psychologist despite having agreed to provide Mr X with one indefinitely and delayed completing a care assessment. The Council failed to explain why the psychology input had ended and it delayed completing a care assessment. That caused Mr Y and his wife distress. An apology, payment to Mr Y and provision of an action plan to address the backlog of care assessments is satisfactory remedy. Lincolnshire County Council (24 017 267) Summary: Ms A complained a local authority and NHS organisations failed to provide her with the care she needs over several years. She also complains they failed to adequately adapt the way it assessed her needs. We have not found fault. There is evidence the organisations have tried to adapt to meet Ms A's needs and have offered a range of services to support her. Salford City Council (24 021 296) Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to tell Ms M and her family about the charges for her short-term respite care and failing to carry out a financial assessment. The Council has already apologised and offered to waive the charges. This remedies the injustice. Berkley Care Blenheim Limited (25 000 452) Summary: There was fault in the quality of care provided to Mr X's late grandfather Mr Y by the care home. It failed to carry out a thorough pre-assessment, delayed taking action when Mr Y's food and fluid intake reduced and failed to properly assess and respond to Mr Y's risk of falls. It also delayed billing Mr X. The care provider has agreed to apologise to Mr X for the distress and uncertainty this caused and confirm it has cancelled the bill. It has already taken action to prevent recurrence of the faults. Leicestershire County Council (25 004 501) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's delay in carrying out a care assessment for his mother, Mrs Y, which he says led to a decline in her physical and mental health. Mr X says the matter has caused his family distress and frustration and they are being pursued for unpaid care fees. He would like an independent investigation, a financial remedy to cover the cost of Mrs Y's care fees, and oversight to prevent similar failures in future. We will not investigate this complaint. It is unlikely we would reach reliable conclusions due to the passage of time, or achieve a meaningful outcome for Mr X. Hampshire County Council (25 004 787) Summary: Miss X complains the Council has not properly assessed her needs. We have not investigated because the Council has offered Miss X a fresh assessment and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Medway Council (25 008 557) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council followed its charging for non-residential care policy to determine how much Mr G should pay towards his care costs. Any injustice is not significant to justify our involvement. London Borough of Hounslow (25 010 083) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision to refuse his application for a blue badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. London Borough of Croydon (25 010 097) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision to refuse his application for a blue badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (25 011 638) Summary: The Council was at fault for delaying carrying out a carers assessment and for not telling Mr X the outcome of a safeguarding enquiry. This meant Mr X had to wait longer than he should have to receive a direct payment for respite and did not know the outcome of the safeguarding enquiry he raised. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X for the distress caused from the delays carrying out the carers assessment and carry out a service improvement. Trafford Council (25 014 605) Summary: The Council was at fault for the way it handled Mr Y's request for housing assistance and for delaying carrying out a social care assessment of his needs. The Council was also at fault for how it handled the complaint. Mr Y had to wait longer for the Council to owe him a homelessness duty, interim accommodation and establish his care needs. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise and make payments for the distress and frustration caused. Sheffield City Council (24 019 982) Summary: There was significant fault on the part of the Council's commissioned care provider which caused considerable injustice to the late Mr X. The Council has acknowledged the failings by the care provider and overseen service improvements and will now make a payment to acknowledge the distress and anxiety caused to Mr X's sister Mrs Y. London Borough of Hounslow (24 022 445) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's handling of her care and support arrangements. We found no fault in the Council's consideration of the issues raised around Miss X's care and support, or in its decision making. London Borough of Hillingdon (25 005 624) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council failing to safeguard his aunt, Miss Y. This is because it is late and there are no good reasons why Mr X did not complain sooner. Leicestershire County Council (25 005 913) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about her mother's care and treatment during September and October 2022. This is because a significant amount of time has passed since the events Miss X is complaining about occurred and it would have been reasonable for Miss X to complain to us sooner. East Sussex County Council (25 009 655) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council has handled Mr X's care. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason to investigate this now. Cornwall Council (25 010 223) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council failing to provide her relative, Mr Y, with appropriate support. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate. London Borough of Brent (24 018 904) Summary: Mrs B complains about the Council's assessment of her son's eligibility for a disabled facilities grant. We have found fault sa there was a delay in the provision of adaptations which have still not been provided and there was fault in the decision-making process. The Council has agreed to review the decision, pay a financial remedy and carry out a service improvement. Hampshire County Council (25 009 426) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about a safeguarding investigation. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating. West Sussex County Council (25 009 674) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's calculation of his brother's contributions towards the cost of his care. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now. London Borough of Haringey (24 021 776) Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to arrange a day centre placement for her son, Mr Y. She also complains about the Council's poor communication. The Council failed to arrange a day centre placement for Mr Y after it was approved in April 2024 until March 2025. It then provided a reduced number of days. This is fault. The Council failed to properly communicate with Miss X. This also amounts to fault. The delays caused distress and frustration and Mr Y missed out on a day centre placement for nearly a year. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X and Mr Y and make payments to recognise the distress and harm caused and loss of provision. Suffolk County Council (25 004 677) Summary: Miss X complained the Council continues to manage her money even though she has now paid off her debts. We have ended our investigation into this complaint because the Council has explained why it remains her appointee, there is no evidence of fault in its actions or of significant injustice to Miss X, and we cannot achieve the outcome she wants. Cheshire East Council (25 004 853) Summary: Mr Y complained the Council delayed removing a Land Registry restriction from his late mother's property after he had paid outstanding care debt in October 2024. He said the delay now means he is liable for new stamp duty charges on the property which came into effect in April 2025. The Council was at fault for delaying the removal of the restriction on the property causing uncertainty and frustration to Mr Y, the Council has agreed to apologise. Northumberland County Council (25 009 517) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about her care and support assessment. The complaint has been made late, and it would have been reasonable for Ms X to complain sooner. London Borough of Harrow (25 009 671) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's rejection of Mr X's application for a Freedom Pass. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision to warrant an investigation. Plymouth City Council (25 010 092) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's care and support provided to Mrs X's son. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement. Additionally, we cannot achieve the outcome sought by Mrs X. East Sussex County Council (25 013 572) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council refused an application for a blue badge. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (25 016 516) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's management of Ms X and Ms Y's care costs. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council's actions. Avery Homes Kirkstall Limited (24 015 212) Summary: There was an error in the contract presented to Mr X which caused him to believe he would receive a refund of Funded Nursing Care (FNC) payments once paid by the NHS. The care provider has reviewed its staff training and agrees to reimburse the payments to Mr X. Birmingham City Council (24 021 047) Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council handled his mother's, Ms Y, residential placements' care fees and its poor communication with him. There were some faults with how the Council dealt with Ms Y's residential care fees, its poor communication with Mr X and delays with its complaint handling. This caused injustice to Mr X and Ms Y. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (25 003 785) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about funding of adult social care. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken in response to the complaint. It has accepted fault, apologised for the distress caused and waived over £400 of client contribution. The Council has explained its calculations. 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