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. Cheshire East Council (24 019 064) Summary: Ms X complains the Council's Adult Social Care services failed in its duty of care despite a safeguarding concern and adult needs assessment to help her in a dispute with her housing provider. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. So, we have completed our investigation. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (24 020 734) Summary: There was fault by the Council. It did not act soon enough to resolve Mrs X's risk of social isolation when she had to live in part of a care home without other residents. Her son, Mr Y has acted on her behalf and this caused him distress. The Council is now regularly reviewing Mrs X's care needs, and has increased her opportunities to socialise. The Council should also apologise to Mr Y for its lack of more urgent action. London Borough of Islington (25 000 077) Summary: Ms C complained about the Council's handling of an occupational therapy assessment and support for her family. The Council's accepted fault for causing delays and how it communicated with her. It was also at fault for causing delays in its complaints handling. The Council's apology and proposed remedy was not enough to acknowledge the inconvenience and uncertainty she experienced. The Council will therefore make an increased symbolic payment. Danforth Care No. 1 Limited (25 004 224) Summary: Ms X complained about poor service during her respite stay at Heatherton House, and the care provider's failure to escalate her concerns. She left early due to the undue distress caused. Ms X received a partial refund for the unused days since making the complaint to us. The evidence shows there was fault in the service, which the care provider acknowledged in its stage 1 response. Following our enquiries, the care provider offered a full refund for the whole stay, which is an appropriate outcome. Hertfordshire County Council (25 011 044) Summary: We will not investigate a complaint about a failure to tell a woman's family when she died. Services provided coherent explanations for why they did not contact anyone. It is unlikely that an investigation would be able to find evidence of fault. Lancashire County Council (25 011 375) Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council placed Mr X's mother Mrs Y in a care home. The Council commissioned care home was at fault of the delay in changing Mrs Y's GP. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to acknowledge the uncertainty and frustration this caused and to remind the care home to change GP registrations as soon as possible. London Borough of Brent (24 021 623) Summary: Mr X complained the Council has charged Mrs Y for more care hours than she received each week. He also complained that the care provider did not provide the agreed level of support. We found the errors and lack of clarity in the way the Council billed Mrs Y is fault. As was the failure to ensure Mrs Y consistently received the agreed level of care. These faults have caused Mrs Y and Mr X an injustice. Mrs Y did not receive the care she needed and had paid for. The Council will apologise and make payments to Mrs Y and Mr X. It will also review Mrs X's care charges and its monitoring arrangements. Essex County Council (24 022 753) Summary: Miss X complained on behalf of her late mother, Mrs Y, about the Council's handling of care charges while Mrs Y was in residential care. Miss X complains the Council failed to provide information about care charges in a timely manner and invoiced Mrs Y for increased care charges without prior discussion. Miss X says the Council's actions caused significant avoidable distress. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to provide an apology and a financial remedy and make service improvements. Essex County Council (24 023 221) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide full information regarding Mrs Y's care home fees or to explain that Mrs Y would be responsible for the cost of 1 to 1 care in addition to the standard care home charges. We found the Council's failure properly explain how much Mrs Y would be charged for her care, or for what period of time is fault. The Council's failure to identify a suitable nursing home for Mrs Y is also fault. These faults meant Miss X received an unexpected substantial bill for Mrs Y's care which caused Mrs Y's family shock and distress. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs Y's family. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (24 023 457) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council wrongly refused to put in place 24-hour live at home care, failed to consider her wishes about staying at home, imposed agency care every fourth week and failed to consider employment law when allowing Ms Y to provide 24-hour care. There is no evidence of fault by the Council. Surrey County Council (25 000 703) Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to update Mr S's care plan to include provision after his day placement ended in August 2024. This meant he missed out on provision to meet his eligible care needs. This also caused his mother, Ms X, distress, as she became his fulltime carer with no respite. The Council agreed to apologise and make payments to Mr S and Ms X to acknowledge the distress caused and the lack of provision. It also agreed to report back to us on steps it will take to prevent similar issues from happening in future. Derbyshire County Council (25 010 069) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council declining to provide a second care worker during a morning call to Ms X. This would be unlikely to find fault in the Council's actions. Laburnum House (Shaw) Limited (25 011 016) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Care Provider failing to return his late father, Mr Y's, money and about it breaching its contract. This is because the complaint is late and we would not be able to achieve the outcome Mr X wants. Suffolk County Council (25 011 184) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision it was no longer responsible for the complainant's aftercare needs after she moved out of its area and was sectioned in a different council's area. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (25 016 340) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a Council officer's conduct while he was talking to a different officer. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate now. Rockley Dene Homes Ltd (24 008 384) Summary: Mr X complained that a care provider was not fair and transparent when it increased charges each year. The terms and conditions in the contract provided by the Care Provider were not transparent which caused injustice as the annual increases were not clear. Mr X's mother did not pay above the standard annual increase so there was no financial injustice. The Care Provider has amended the terms and conditions to remedy the injustice. Oxfordshire County Council (24 010 239) Summary: Mr X and Ms Y complained about the Council's handling and decisions around their adult child's (Z) care and support, care placement, and mental capacity. We found no fault in the process the Council followed to reach its decisions on the substantial matters complained about. It therefore reached decisions it was entitled to make. There was some fault relating to a review meeting and delayed complaints handling. The Council will apologise to acknowledge the impact this had on Mr X and Ms Y. London Borough of Newham (24 019 552) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to act on or address threatening and anti-social behaviour from a neighbour who receives support from the Council's Adult Social Care service. The Council was at fault for failing to consider using its anti-social behaviour powers, and for failing to properly record how it reached some of its decisions. The Council will apologise to Mr X for the avoidable frustration its fault caused, and remind staff about correct procedures. Borough Care Ltd (25 002 861) Summary: The Care Provider was at fault for not maintaining Y's personal hygiene and for delaying its response to Mr X's concerns about the matter. The Care Provider further failed to keep adequate records about the issue. It also failed to record how it assessed Y's capacity when obtaining consent to use Y's photograph for promotional purposes. The Care Provider agreed to apologise to Y to acknowledge the injustice these faults caused. It agreed to also carry out service improvements to improve its record keeping. There was no fault in the Care Provider's accounting system or how it invoiced Y's care fees. Bupa Care Homes (PT Lindsay) Limited (25 010 940) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Care Home losing her late relative, Ms Y's rings. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome she wants, we would not be able to add to the Care Provider's investigation and it would be reasonable for Mrs X to use the legal route which is available to her. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (24 016 915) Summary: Miss X complained the Council wrongly reduced her care hours. We find no fault in the Council's decision-making. However, we do find fault in the Council's communication. This caused Miss X avoidable distress, uncertainty and time and trouble. We recommend the Council apologise and makes a payment to Miss X. Redcar & Cleveland Council (24 019 078) Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council's management of their direct payments, delays in completing care plans and a carer's assessment and poor record keeping. We found fault by the Council in its management of Mr X and Mrs X's direct payments and delays in completing care plans and a carers assessment. The Council agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused to Mr and Mrs X. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (25 000 447) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council removed her care and support after completing a care reassessment using a non -specialist deafblind assessor. She said the Council has placed her back on a previous care assessment, which does not meet her needs. The Council is at fault for delaying in reassessing Mrs X care needs using a specialist deafblind assessor causing distress and uncertainty. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X, complete a full reassessment of her care needs, review its care assessment policy relating to deafblind assessments, ensuring staff understanding and make a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice caused. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 001 590) Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's handing of Mr Y's care and support needs. Mr X complains the Council placed Mr Y in an unsuitable placement and did not arrange regular home visits. Mr X says this impacted Mr Y's physical health and emotional wellbeing. We find the Council at fault which caused injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment and complete a fresh care assessment. Lancashire County Council (25 001 647) Summary: There was fault by the Council in its financial assessment process and a delay in responding to the complaint. This caused Ms X avoidable confusion and time and trouble. The Council has already apologised and refunded an invoice Ms X had already paid. This Council will issue a further written apology, make a symbolic payment and deliver training for staff in the adult social care team on the charging rules and guidance. Wiltshire Council (25 002 575) Summary: Mr X complained about the needs assessment carried out by the Council into his daughter's care provision. He says that it was not completed in line with the Council's own policy and procedures and changed the level of support in place for his daughter. We found the Council at fault. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused. It has also agreed to complete a reassessment into the carer's support plan. Suffolk County Council (25 003 045) Summary: There was a delay in offering Mr B an assessment by an occupational therapist, to decide whether Mr B was eligible for a disabled facilities grant (DFG) but the Council has already remedied this. The Council failed to properly consider its duties under the Armed Forces Covenant when it made its decision and this was fault. The Council has agreed to review its decision and provide a written response to Mr B. Leeds City Council (25 006 726) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to disregard a property in the financial assessment of adult social care charges. This is because there is not a significant enough injustice to justify our involvement. North Lincolnshire Council (25 007 635) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to refuse a Blue Badge. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating. Lancashire County Council (25 008 785) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's handling of her care needs assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation and it is unlikely our involvement would add to the Council's response. Lancaster City Council (25 010 007) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about how the Council responded to her concerns about her wet room. This is because her complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to consider it now. Warwickshire County Council (25 010 281) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council not completing recommendations it made in relation to care it provided to her late mother. This is because the complaint is late and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (25 010 751) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council followed its safeguarding procedures in late 2023. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate now. London Borough of Barnet (25 011 179) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's response to her request for a Care Act assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's actions to warrant investigation. Staffordshire County Council (24 007 701) Summary: The Council commissioned care provider was at fault for the poor care it provided to Mrs X's late mother, Mrs Z. The Council was at fault for the delay in arranging a respite placement for Mrs Z and for the failure to explore the option of direct payments to pay for the respite. It also failed to properly explore alternative options when Mrs Z wanted a long-term care home placement. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X, make a payment equivalent to the direct payment for respite and a payment to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty she was caused by the Council's faults. Essex County Council (24 012 667) Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about the Council's handling of a complaint about adult social care. This is because it concerns matters which are either late, outside our legal jurisdiction, or to which the Council has already responded appropriately, and so there is no worthwhile outcome to further investigation. Reading Borough Council (24 019 730) Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council assessed his care needs and decided to meet them. We found fault which caused injustice to Mr X. The Council has already taken some action to remedy Mr X's injustice. The Council has also agreed to apologise to Mr X, address his concerns about the most recent care and support plan, decide whether to carry out a carer's assessment for Mr X's mother and pay him £500 to recognise his distress. The Council has also agreed further service improvement. Brighton & Hove City Council (24 023 076) Summary: Mx X complains for Ms Y the Council was at fault in the way it provided her with care and support. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. So have completed our investigation. Nottinghamshire County Council (25 008 816) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint, made on behalf of his daughter Miss Y, about the contents of a recent Council care and support plan. An investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome and we cannot achieve the complaint outcome Mr X seeks. London Borough of Bexley (25 009 006) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's wording in an adult social care document. The Council has apologised to the complainant for her upset and made some changes. There is not enough injustice to justify an Ombudsman investigation. London Borough of Newham (25 009 888) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Y's complaint on behalf of her aunt, Miss X, about the Council's decision to refuse her application for a renewal of her blue badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. Reading Borough Council (25 010 016) Summary: We will not investigate Miss B's complaint about the Council's handling of her Disabled Facilities Grant application. This is because it is unlikely our involvement would lead to a different outcome. Nottinghamshire County Council (25 010 235) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's care review meeting and report, and it not replying to her complaint. An investigation by us would not reach a different outcome. We also cannot achieve the complaint outcome Miss X wants. We do not investigate council complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issues which caused the complaint. James Hudson (Builders) Limited (25 010 314) Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the standard of care in a care home up to December 2023. There is not a good reason for the delay in the matter being escalated to us. In any event, we could not achieve the outcome Ms X seeks. The Information Commissioner is best placed to consider Ms X's request for information in 2025. Gloucestershire County Council (25 010 866) Summary: We will not investigate this whistle-blowing complaint about matters principally involving staff safety at temporary accommodation contracted by the Council. We are not a responsible body for whistle-blowing complaints and other bodies are better placed than us to deal with this matter. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (25 012 130) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council failing to assess his brother's health and weight needs because the Council has already investigated, apologised, upheld most of his concerns, and agreed on actions. Further investigation is unlikely to achieve anything more. 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