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. Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (24 018 019) Summary: There was fault on the part of the care provider which led to actual suffering and distress for Mr X and distress for Mrs X. The care provider acknowledges fault in its record keeping and offers a goodwill payment. It should make a more significant payment to reflect the injustice caused by its actions. Welford Healthcare MC Ltd (24 022 122) Summary: Mrs Y complains about several aspects of the care delivered to her father, Mr W, whilst resident in Isle Court Nursing Home. We find the home did not properly document the change from respite to permanent care and did not record times when it said Mr W refused personal care. The care provider has also acknowledged it should have had a discussion with the family before serving notice to end Mr W's placement. The care provider will make a symbolic payment and implement some service improvements. London Borough of Waltham Forest (25 000 551) Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed agreeing to fund a supported living placement, offered him three unsuitable options, failed to keep his representative up-to-date and refused to arrange a best interests meeting. The Council carried out the mental capacity assessment process properly but delayed consulting alternative placements, delayed recognising the placement Mr Y had identified was the only suitable placement and failed to keep Mr Y up-to-date. That caused Mr Y distress. An apology, payment to Mr Y and process changes are satisfactory remedy. Nottinghamshire County Council (25 011 835) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about how the Council handled a safeguarding investigation. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement. Wiltshire Council (25 012 571) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about bathroom works, funded by a disabled facilities grant. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate now. Further, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Hertfordshire County Council (25 012 608) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to investigate Mr X's concerns. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to exercise discretion to consider it now. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (25 013 139) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the actions of the Council adult social care department. Charging matters are historic, and there is no good reason to consider them now. Where we are not investigating matters, there is no good reason to consider how the Council dealt with a complaint about it. And there is no evidence the Council has had the opportunity to deal with a complaint about a care assessment. Peterborough City Council (25 001 064) Summary: There was fault on the part of the Council's commissioned care provider which caused injustice to Mrs X. The Council should recognise the distress caused to Mrs X and her family and offer a suitable payment. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (25 010 070) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision that Ms X did not meet the eligibility criteria for support under the Care Act 2014. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. London Borough of Croydon (25 010 536) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about children's and adult social care over many years. This is because we cannot carry out a full, fair and effective investigation into the Council's actions now due to the significant passage of time since the events complained about. Devon County Council (25 011 114) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. This is because the Council made decisions about the care support under the best interest decision process of the Mental Capacity Act. Any challenge to that would need to be through the court of protection. Any injustice to the complainant is not enough to justify our involvement. The Information Commissioner's Office would be better placed to consider concerns about breaches of personal data. Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (25 011 195) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a Disabled Facilities Grant. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision. Central Bedfordshire Council (25 011 444) Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about care charges from 2023. There is not a good reason for the delay in the matter being brought to the Ombudsman. London Borough of Bromley (24 016 542) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's investigation into the safeguarding and charging services it provided. He says the Council failed to act on the charging issue before it had resolved the safeguarding matter. Also, the Council agreed to cancel the charges but then delayed in doing so. We found the Council at fault. It has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice caused and complete a new written outcome letter into the safeguarding investigation. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (24 018 095) Summary: Miss X complained the Council took too long to deal with her application for a disabled facilities grant for home adaptations for her son, and that its assessors that visited her home in 2023 and 2024 were rude and did not listen to her. Part of Miss X's complaint is late and we have decided there are not good reasons she did not complain sooner. We find the Council at fault for its delay following an assessment visit in 2024 that caused injustice because it deprived Miss X's son of adaptations which would have increased his independence and improved his daily life. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice. West Sussex County Council (25 000 463) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing a financial assessment for her father, Mr Y. She also complained the Council provided late and incorrect invoices and did not reassess Mr Y's care needs when his circumstances changed. We found fault by the Council on all matters. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and Mr Y and make Mrs X a symbolic payment in recognition of the avoidable time and trouble caused to her. It also agreed to reduce the invoices for Mr Y's care to reflect that he would likely have made different choices about his care, save for the delay in completing his financial assessment and to reflect the uncertainty about the accuracy of the invoices. Essex County Council (25 003 002) Summary: Ms B complained about the actions of the Council in respect of her mother, Mrs C when she went into a care home initially on a temporary basis but then became a permanent resident in April 2024. We have found fault in the Council's actions which caused Mrs C some financial loss and Ms B uncertainty and distress. We are satisfied that the Council has put right the financial situation it has also agreed to make a symbolic payment to Ms B. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (25 010 308) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a Council commissioned care provider. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons why he did not complain to us sooner. North East Lincolnshire Council (24 015 586) Summary: Mrs K complained about the way Care Plus Group moved her husband, Mr H, to The Old Library Residential Home. We consider CPG acted with fault when it moved him, which caused her distress and frustration. The Old Library then did not use the right equipment to transfer Mr H. It also caused Mrs K uncertainty from its poor record keeping. The CPG and The Old Library have agreed to apologise and take action to remedy her injustice. Leicester City Council (25 000 245) Summary: The Council was not at fault for the delays in finalising Mr X's needs assessment Suffolk County Council (25 010 387) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about inaccurate fees for adult social care. Although it took a long time, the Council and complainant have now agreed the outstanding fees. The main issue is resolved, and it is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would add anything significantly different to justify our resource investigating. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (25 010 434) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council failing to safeguard his sister from abuse. This is because Mr X has taken legal action and the law prevents us from investigating matters which are being considered by the courts. West Sussex County Council (25 011 696) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken in response to the complaint. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further than the apology and offer to assess needs the Council has already given. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (24 018 569) Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to properly investigate when he raised concerns that a care provider it commissioned was not providing appropriate care to his nephew. We found there were issues with the care his nephew received, and the Council had not addressed these robustly or promptly when they were raised. The Council agreed to make a payment to Mr X to recognise the stress and difficulty the matter caused the family. We considered the proposed payment was appropriate and in accordance with our guidance for remedying complaints. Peterborough City Council (24 016 330) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to act to resolve issues with a care package and wrongly allowed the care provider to ask Miss Y to attend some visits. The Council delayed arranging a review when issues with the care package became clear and the care provider contacted Miss Y without Mrs X's permission. That caused Mrs X and Miss Y distress. An apology and guidance to officers is satisfactory remedy. Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (24 022 310) Summary: Ms X complained on her own behalf and that of her mother, Mrs Y, that the Care Provider failed to properly care for their late father and husband and says its actions contributed to his death. There was fault by the Care Provider which caused Ms X and Mrs Y distress and uncertainty. The Care Provider has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment. The Care Provider has also agreed to make a service improvement and provide evidence of service improvements it has already carried out. Lincolnshire County Council (25 001 100) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about poor communication and not providing enough funding for care. There is not enough evidence of injustice to justify an investigation. Redcar & Cleveland Council (25 008 640) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with Mr B's request for a refund of residential care fees he paid for his wife's care. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (25 008 714) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of respite care. This is because the Council has already accepted fault by the Care Provider it commissioned, taken action to remedy the injustice caused and recommended service improvements. Further investigation by us would not achieve a more meaningful outcome. Norfolk County Council (25 010 705) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council not taking his late mother Ms Y's care contributions, then billing for them after she had died and he had distributed her estate's funds. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now. We also could not achieve the outcome Mr X seeks. Essex County Council (24 007 288) Summary: Ms A complained that the Council failed to safeguard her late mother Mrs X in a care home where admissions had been suspended. The evidence shows the Council-commissioned care provider did not take all necessary measures to ensure Mrs X's safety and she fell and was injured several times as a result. The injustice to the late Mrs X cannot now be remedied but the Council offers a payment to Ms A in acknowledgement of the distress suffered. 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