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.   Hampshire County Council (24 007 579) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's handling of her mother's care. We find the Council at fault for failing to correctly record Mrs B's hospital admission as a permanent planned change. This means Mrs B was incorrectly charged for care. The Council has agreed to recalculate Mrs B's care charges and issue a revised invoice to Mrs B's estate. Cheshire West & Chester Council (24 022 539) Summary: The Council has not been at fault in its assessment of Ms X's eligible needs and the support offered to meet them. London Borough of Croydon (25 001 034) Summary: I did not find fault with the Council for the support it offered Ms Z through both her care and support plan and safeguarding. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (25 003 069) Summary: We found fault with the Council taking 18 months too long to complete the works for Ms X's Disability Facilities Grant application. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £3,750 for the avoidable distress, difficulty and uncertainty it caused. Swindon Borough Council (25 008 894) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council harassing her and her late mother in relation to them not accepting its package of care. This is because her complaint is late and there are no good reasons why she did not complain sooner. London Borough of Redbridge (25 009 089) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's contact with the complainant about his care and support and charges for care. The Council confirmed it would review the complainant's care and support needs and complete a financial assessment when it responded to his complaint. Any injustice was remedied during the Council's complaint investigation. We cannot add to the Council's previous investigation. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (25 009 946) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care at a day centre. This is because an Ombudsman investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome and it is unlikely we would find any significant fault to justify our resource. Staffordshire County Council (24 016 631) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's decision to classify her late father's care home placement as permanent, rather than temporary. She also complained the Council failed to explain the implications of signing a deferred payment agreement, and it gave misleading advice about it. We do not find the Council was at fault. London Borough of Haringey (24 020 230) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has not provided her son, Mr Y, with social care support to meet his needs since 2021. She said this caused distress to the family and impacted Mr Y's mental and physical health. Mrs X wants the Council to support Mr Y and compensate him for lost social care provision. The Council was not at fault. London Borough of Barnet (24 022 760) Summary: Miss B complained the Council failed to provide her with a wheelchair for use when she attended a day service. We found the Council to be at fault with the way it responded to the lack of wheelchair provision and its complaint handling. This caused distress and frustration. To remedy the injustice, the Council agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and take action to improve its service. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (25 002 679) Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's handling of Mr Y's discharge from hospital. Mr X complains the Council did not properly complete Mr Y's capacity assessment and arranged an unsuitable discharge care plan. Mr X says this put Mr Y at risk and impacted his physical health. We find no fault with the Council's handling of the capacity assessment. However, we do find fault with the Council's decision-making in the discharge care planning process. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and take service improvement action. London Borough of Bexley (25 009 039) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about safeguarding adults. This is because we are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken to investigate, accept fault, and apologise for the impact of its fault. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would add anything further. Bristol City Council (25 010 075) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's assessment of his needs and refusal to build a ground floor extension to his property. There is not enough of evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation by us. Norfolk County Council (25 012 140) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council not involving her in decisions about her father, Mr Y's, care and instead, liaising with the Lasting Power of Attorneys which she said were not appropriate people. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons why she did not complain sooner. It is also unlikely that we would find fault with 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