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. Thurrock Council (24 022 910) Summary: The complaint is the Council gave incorrect advice to Mr B which led to him agreeing to move his mother between nursing homes, on the understanding nothing would change in her care and support. But instead the Council carried out an assessment and Mr B's mother was liable for her care costs. The Council then delayed responding to his complaint and said it had sent a response when it had not. The Ombudsman's decision is there is no documentary evidence of the Council's involvement in the move or in giving the family any advice. There was some delay in its carrying out an assessment and responding to Mr B's complaint. But these did not cause a significant enough injustice to warrant a further remedy. Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (25 005 166) Summary: Mr A complained that a care coordinator, working for an integrated mental health and social care service, failed to support his son to apply for Universal Credit. We have not found fault by either the responsible Council or NHS Trust. However, we have found fault in how both organisations responded to Mr A's complaint. Neither would accept responsibility for it at first. Both organisations have agreed to apologise, take corrective action and make a financial payment to address the injustice this caused Mr A. Kent County Council (25 006 254) Summary: Representatives for the late Mrs X complained that she did not receive the care and support she should have in a short-term residential care unit operated by Kent County Council and Kent Community Health NHS Foundation Trust. We decided not to investigate the complaint. Mrs X has died, so an investigation would not achieve a remedy for her. Durham County Council (25 011 077) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information the Council has recorded or shared. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider data concerns. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's assessment of housing and care needs, it is entitled to rely on recorded data. There is not enough evidence the Council's actions led to the claimed injustice. Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (25 011 875) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an assessment by the Council's adult social care department for adaptations to a property. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in the way it made its decision. So, we cannot challenge the decision even though the complainant disagrees with it. London Borough of Islington (24 009 076) Summary: On behalf of Mrs X, Mr Y complained about the communication, staff conduct, and quality of care provided by a Care Home commissioned by the Council. Mr Y also complained the Council's safeguarding investigation did not fully address his concerns. We found the Council took too long to complete its safeguarding investigation. We also found the Council at fault for not considering Mr Y's concerns in full as part of its safeguarding investigation. This caused avoidable frustration, distress and uncertainty. We also believe Mrs X was exposed to the avoidable risk of harm due to the Council's faults. The Council has already taken some action to address concerns about the Care Home. To address the remaining injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise and pay a symbolic financial remedy to Mrs X. The Council has also agreed to review the faults identified and confirm to the Ombudsman what action it will take to prevent recurrence. West Northamptonshire Council (24 019 888) Summary: Mr X complained about a delay providing his relative Ms Y with additional care and about fault in the financial assessment for her care charge. The Council is at fault. It took too long to make Ms Y's direct payment available to her after revising her care and support plan to include extra care. The Council made an incorrect statement about Ms Y's mobility vehicle which caused avoidable distress. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (25 000 377) Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council completed the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) process and works to his home. Mr X said this impacted his finances and mental health. There was fault in the way the Council delayed making a payment, has not recorded communications and its complaint handling was poor. This distressed Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise and make the financial payment it offered. Kent County Council (25 003 822) Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of a care provider about the Council's handling of payments relating to a service user. As part of the complaints process, the Council apologised for causing a delay in increasing payments for the service user from December 2024. It resolved the issue and put steps in place to prevent such delays in future. We found the Council's response and action to be appropriate, and some parts of Mr X's complaint related to contractual matters. We have therefore not made any further findings or recommendations. Cheshire West & Chester Council (25 005 050) Summary: Mr B complained that the Council had sent him invoices for dates when a service had not been provided and he said the invoices were confusing and lacked transparency. The Council has already upheld Mr B's complaint and we agree there was fault. The Council has agreed to pay a symbolic financial remedy and carry out a service improvement. Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council (25 014 158) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X's disagreement with the Council over adaptations to his home under the Disabled Facilities Grant scheme. This is because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council. Northumberland County Council (24 022 291) Summary: Mrs F complained the Council breached her mother, Mrs B's human rights by placing her in a care home against her wishes and charging her incorrectly. We found delay in seeking a home care provider which caused uncertainty. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment to Mrs B to remedy this injustice. We found no fault in the rest of the complaint. There is no evidence the Council has not had due regard to Mrs B's human rights. London Borough of Ealing (25 000 784) Summary: We found no fault with the care provided to Miss Y by London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, West London NHS Trust and North West London Integrated Care Board. Oxfordshire County Council (25 000 946) Summary: We found the Council was at fault. The care and support plan it created for Mr X did not set out clearly the agreed expectations for the division of his care between paid and informal carers. This caused Mr X's wife, Mrs X, confusion and uncertainty. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (25 002 822) Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed completing a social care needs assessment and that it has denied him getting medical treatment by making false statements. While there was a delay in completing the care needs assessment, this did not affect the outcome as Mr X continues to refuse to accept the care offered to meet his assessed needs. Telford & Wrekin Council (25 002 971) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint that a carer shouted at her during a telephone call and falsely accused Mrs X of leaving many voicemails. This is because any injustice arising is not significant enough to warrant an investigation. Brighton & Hove City Council (25 003 522) Summary: Ms C complains the Council and Trust failed to provide suitable care and safeguard her mother, Mrs D. Ms C complains the Care Provider inappropriately gave notice following safeguarding concerns and Mrs D was forced to move. We will not investigate this complaint as there is not enough evidence of fault or injustice and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by an investigation. Bracknell Forest Council (25 008 901) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council refused a relocation grant. There is not enough evidence of fault in how it reached its decision to justify our involvement. Westminster City Council (25 014 427) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's assessment of Mr X's care needs. This is because the Council has already remedied any injustice Mr X suffered during its complaints process. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (23 013 452) Summary: Mr X's main complaint is that the Council failed to properly assess his needs in July 2023 and then failed to respond to his complaint about the assessment. We find that the Council did not follow the correct process as it failed to send a copy of Mr X's assessment to him and then deleted the assessment. The Council also did not respond to Mr X's complaint about the assessment. However, the Council's offer of a re-assessment soon after Mr X complained, has mitigated a lot of the injustice Mr X suffered because of the fault. Cambridgeshire County Council (24 021 792) Summary: The Council's commissioned care provider failed to provide a good standard of care for the late Mrs X, failed to keep proper records in accordance with the regulations and did not provide her nutrition in accordance with the hospital discharge instructions. The Council agrees to recognise the considerable distress caused to Ms B and her family by the care provider's failings. Staffordshire County Council (25 001 986) Summary: The complaint is about the Council's decision that it would not fund the fees for the care home the complainant was in. So she needed to move when the Council took over the care funding. Also that the Council did not give the complainant a choice of alternative care homes to move to. We see no fault in the way the Council arrived at its decision about the maximum care fees it would pay. It did only provide one alternative care home, but has explained why. We do not uphold the complaint. Cornwall Council (25 002 411) Summary: There is no fault in the Council's decision not to disregard capital from March to December 2024 when carrying out a financial assessment for care home fees. The financial injustice to Mr X, caused by the late payment of the mortgage, was not the fault of the Council. Norfolk County Council (25 004 034) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council not providing him with the care and support he requires. This is because we would not be able to achieve anything more with a further investigation. Blackpool Borough Council (25 006 999) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council completed a mental capacity assessment before the complainant's late mother was discharged from hospital in June 2025. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (25 008 432) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Council completing a care act assessment for Ms X's son and its subsequent decision not to backdate direct payments. A complaint about that is late and there are no good reasons for us to exercise discretion to consider it now. Additionally, we will not investigate a complaint about the Councils request to reassess Ms X's son and its decision on how his direct payment can be used. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement. Hampshire County Council (25 009 485) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about how the Council communicated with him about Miss Y's care. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Warrington Council (25 009 698) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a care needs review. There is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 010 653) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's handling of a Disabled Facilities Grant. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. West Sussex County Council (25 005 164) Summary: There was no fault by the Council because it has carried out a re-assessment of Mr Y's social care needs and produced an updated care and support plan. It has offered to correct the assessment if Ms X provides details of inaccuracies. This is in line with our expectations. North Yorkshire Council (25 008 513) Summary: Mr A complains his mother's estate has been invoiced for a care home stay which should have been covered by discharge to assess funding. He also complains his mother was not referred to the Integrated Care Board for continuing healthcare funding. We will not investigate this complaint because an investigation is unlikely to find fault with the Council. The NHS Trust has not yet had an opportunity to respond to Mr A's complaint. Warwickshire County Council (24 014 348) Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about Mrs X's care and treatment in hospital, a safeguarding alert the hospital made to the Council, and an authorisation to deprive Mrs X of her liberty in hospital. We cannot investigate this complaint because the matters Mr and Mrs X complain about are not administrative functions of the Council. 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