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. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (25 001 433) Summary: The Council was at fault for delaying assessing Ms X for adaptations to her property. As a result Ms X has not been able to wash properly and has had to wait much longer than she should for the Council to agree to adaptations. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise to Ms X, make a payment to her to recognise the delays she experienced and carry out a service improvement. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (25 010 565) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding because there is not enough evidence of fault. We have no powers to consider concerns about the standard of care arranged by the NHS. Lincolnshire County Council (25 010 789) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charging for adult social care. The Council has increased the personal budget and will backdate any overpayment. The Council has given a detailed response about requests for disability related expenditure and will consider this further if it receives supporting evidence. We are satisfied with the Council's actions in response to the complaint and it is unlikely we would add anything further. Cornwall Council (25 013 127) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision to place a legal charge against his late parent's property. This is because it is not in our jurisdiction to do so and we previously considered his complaint. Mr X's complaint is also late. Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (24 022 879) Summary: The Care Provider failed to update Mrs Y's care plan to reflect a change in her care needs around continence. There was also a failure to ensure Mrs Y saw a chiropodist regularly. This caused avoidable distress for which the Care Provider has apologised, completed staff training and introduced a new policy around continence care. This action is appropriate and so there is no need for us to make any recommendations. We did not uphold complaints about poor oral care or a failure to obtain treatment for a urine infection. Hampshire County Council (25 001 375) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed in carrying out transition planning for Miss Y and failed to carry out adequate Care Act assessments. Mrs X also complained the Council delayed in providing a support plan for Miss Y's which meant she was left without adequate care and support. We found the Council's failings and delays in the transition process and in completing appropriate assessments and support plans are fault. These faults left Miss Y without appropriate care and support and caused significant uncertainty, distress and upset for Miss Y and her family. The Council will apologise and make payments to Mrs X and Miss Y and review its processes. Birmingham City Council (25 011 546) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to apply for warrant under the terms of the Mental Health Act 1983. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Christies Care Ltd (25 015 187) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Care Provider wrongly accusing her of abusing her mother and reporting it to the Council. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Care Provider and we would not be able to achieve the outcome Ms X wants. Sheffield City Council (24 023 387) Summary: I find fault in the care provided by a care provider acting on behalf of the Council. The Council has agreed to provide a remedy. Birmingham City Council (24 023 417) Summary: Mr F complained the Council failed to provide him with a social worker or any care and support in autumn 2024. We found no fault. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (25 000 966) Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of his son, Mr Y, that the Council wrongly reduced his care package and did not include his privately arranged weekend care as a disability-related expense. We found fault in the Council's decision-making process. The Council also delayed issuing an appeal decision. This is fault. This caused Mr Y to pay more for his care and caused undue distress. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and Mr Y, offset any monies against the debt on Mr Y's client account and pay the recommended financial remedy. It should also review Mr Y's care plan and supported hours. London Borough of Haringey (25 009 291) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X being overcharged for his care, the issues with a lift, or the delays in servicing his disability equipment. This is either because part of his complaint is late, there is no fault by the Council, or the Council has not had a chance to consider it under its complaint's procedure. Green Lane Care Centre (25 010 204) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint as it is outside our jurisdiction. Mr X's care was arranged and funded by the NHS and so the complaint can be investigated by the Health Services Ombudsman. London Borough of Islington (25 010 484) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charges for adult social care. We could not add to the investigation the Council has already done and are satisfied with the actions taken by the Council when considering Miss Y's complaint. Salford City Council (25 011 272) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of an adult social care referral. We could not add to the investigation the Council has already carried out, and the Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider the part that relates to data accuracy. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (25 011 306) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to refuse to replace the complainants walk in shower with a standard bath. The Council remedied the injustice when it investigated the complaint. We cannot add to the previous investigation by the Council. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 023 131) Summary: Ms X complained how the Council dealt with her daughter's direct payments account. She says the Council told her there was a nil charge for services, and then three years later it wrote to her asking for over £5,000 for backdated arrears. We find the Council was at fault for its delay in completing audits and contacting Ms X about the outstanding arrears. This caused Ms X frustration and upset. The Council waived some of the outstanding arrears and arranged a payment plan when it responded to Ms X's complaint. This partially remedies her injustice. The Council has also agreed to apologise to Ms X to address the remaining injustice. London Borough of Hillingdon (25 001 417) Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to respond and effectively deal with the safeguarding concerns reported to it. We have found fault in the Council's actions for failing to inform Miss X about the progress and outcome of the referrals she had made. The Council has agreed to issue Miss X with an apology and complete service improvements. Norfolk County Council (25 009 743) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care and mental capacity assessment. This is because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault and there is no worthwhile outcome we could achieve as the person receiving care support has since died. The ExtraCare Charitable Trust (25 011 047) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider's decision to charge the person affected for the termination notice period stated in the contract for care. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Care UK Care Services Limited (25 011 335) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the residential care provided to her mother Ms Y. There is insufficient significant injustice to Ms X and Ms Y caused by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating. An investigation by us would not achieve a different outcome than that provided by the care provider. Southside Partnership (25 015 368) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Care Provider not being able to provide him with a narrative for his late sister's holidays. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons why Mr X did not complain sooner. Furthermore, we would not be able to add to the Care Provider's investigation. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (24 023 473) Summary: There was some fault by the Council in the way it communicated with Ms X about her support hours, and in the number of hours she received. The Council agrees to acknowledge the reduced support and distress Ms X suffered by a payment to her. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (25 001 509) Summary: Priority Care Home (the Care Home) which provided services on behalf of the Council was at fault in how it cared for Ms G. The Care Home failed to adequately communicate with Mrs X or other professionals about Ms G's deteriorating behaviour before giving her notice to leave the Home. This caused Mrs X and Ms G distress and uncertainty. The Council has already apologised to Mrs X for the injustice caused and has ensured the Care Home has carried out some service improvements to prevent recurrence of the fault. The Council agreed to ensure the Care Home now reviews how it communicates with a resident's Next of Kin/family members going forward. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (25 005 800) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's decision not to fund a residential placement for her child and said the Council's complaint response did not address all the issues she raised. We have ended our investigation. This is because the Council has already reassessed Mr Y's needs, reviewed its earlier decision, and put in place additional care and support. There is nothing further an investigation by the Ombudsman could achieve at this stage. As we are not investigating the substantive matters, it would not be a proportionate use of public resources to investigate the Council's complaint handling. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (25 007 444) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about delays in assessment and payment of a discretionary carers payment, or her interaction with the Council. This is because part of the complaint is late, and further investigation of the other parts, would not lead to a different outcome. Hertfordshire County Council (25 009 525) Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about an accident Mr X's mother had in a care home, which Mr X believed was due to inadequate assessment of her needs before her arrival. There is not good reasoning for the entire period of delay in the matter being brought to the Ombudsman. Hertfordshire County Council (25 010 682) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about completion of forms for a private court application. The Council has no duty to complete the form, so it is not likely we would find it at fault for refusing to do so. West Berkshire Council (25 010 945) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to start an adults safeguarding enquiry. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (25 012 088) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council investigated safeguarding concerns reported by the complainant. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (24 006 242) 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. 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