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. Birmingham City Council (24 017 850) Summary: Ms X complained about the quality of works carried out by Council approved contractors under a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). There was no fault in how the Council carried out the works. The Council was at fault for a delay in responding to Ms X's complaint about the works. It agreed to apologise for the distress and uncertainty the delay caused. However, when it did respond and investigate Ms X's concerns it did so without fault. Salford City Council (25 001 048) Summary: Miss X complains the Council did not provide the necessary adaptations to her property to assist her to care for her teenage daughter, who is severely disabled. She complains the matter has been stressful. We found the Council failed to take and communicate decisions in a timely way, and it did not have regard for all the facts. This caused delay and meant adaptations were not implemented. We recommended an apology, a meeting to explain the Council's position and a payment to reflect the impact of the period the family have had without suitable adaptations. London Borough of Havering (25 002 213) Summary: Miss Y complains about the Council's communication regarding Direct Payments and client contributions. She says her allocated social worker did not provide clear advice, which led to a care provider seeking payment for unpaid invoices. In our view, the Council failed to act promptly once it became aware that Miss Y was not paying her client contributions. This delay allowed the debt on the account to increase. The Council has agreed to apologise and write to Miss Y to confirm the amount and status of any money owed. Norfolk County Council (25 004 763) Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's decision to stop her direct payments without prior notice. She also complained the Council left her without care for several months after agreeing to complete a reassessment. We have not investigated Ms X's complaint about the Council's decision to stop her direct payments without prior notice as it is late, and there are no good reasons to investigate it. The Council was not at fault for how it handled the reassessment of Ms X's care and support needs. North Yorkshire Council (25 006 953) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about the actions of a care provider acting on behalf of the Council. This is because Miss X began court action about them. The Ombudsman cannot consider cases about matters which have been to court. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (25 012 061) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council replacing him as the appointee for his sister and the Social Worker's poor communication. This is because the complaint is late, there are other bodies better placed to consider the complaint, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Durham County Council (25 012 799) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's views of the sufficiency of the care provision it assessed for Mr X and included in his care plan. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's actions to warrant investigation. North Yorkshire Council (25 013 211) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled concerns about a Lasting Power of Attorney and how it considered a complaint about outstanding fees for care. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigation and we could not achieve the outcome Miss X and Mr Z seek. Sheffield City Council (25 015 545) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint where Mr X's relative should live because this will be determined in court. Also, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's response to Mr X's safeguarding concerns to justify investigating. Medway Council (24 020 147) Summary: Miss X complained the Council put care in place for her grandmother despite making it clear they did not want it or to pay for it. We did not find the Council at fault for how it initially considered her grandmother's wish for continued care. We found fault it did not complete a financial assessment before starting the care, causing distress. It was also at fault for delay with Miss X's complaint causing frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and her grandmother to remedy the injustice. The Council has also agreed to update us on the progress and completion of an online cost estimator on its website to support care planning. Peterborough City Council (24 020 798) Summary: We do not consider Peterborough City Council acted with fault when it arranged Mr D's Section 117 aftercare from Availl Huntingdon. While the Council acted with fault when it communicated the end of that care package, it has remedied the injustice to Mr D and his father, Mr C. Also, Availl did not act with fault in the way it supported Mr D. London Borough of Barnet (25 002 306) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide information about the amount payable for her father's care fees and delayed completing a financial assessment and in requesting payments. We have found the Council at fault in the delay in providing the outcome of a financial assessment and failures in communication. This meant Miss X received a large, backdated bill for care fees which caused her distress. The Council agreed to apologise, agree an affordable repayment plan and make a symbolic payment to Miss X. Norfolk County Council (25 009 156) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to Mr X's safeguarding concerns about his mother. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Derbyshire County Council (25 011 263) Summary: We will not investigate Mr F's complaint about direct payments during his son's transition from children's to adults' services because there is nothing we could add to the Council's response. The Council is about to respond to Mr F's complaint about an audit. If he remains dissatisfied once he has completed the complaints process, Mr F can make a new complaint to us. Portsmouth City Council (25 013 137) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about detention under the Mental Health Act. We do not have the power to investigate matters considered in Court. Liverpool City Council (25 013 331) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about subsistence payments the Council made to the complainant. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Shropshire Council (25 013 780) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charges for adult social care. This is because it is a late complaint and I am not satisfied the complainant could not have complained sooner. Suffolk County Council (24 011 890) Summary: Mr X complained the Council gave misleading information about care costs, delayed sending invoices and allowed a debt to increase. He also complained about delay in responding to his complaint and the Council reporting concerns to the Office of the Public Guardian. The Council correctly notified another lasting power of attorney about the costs and sent regular invoices and reminders. It has apologised for the delay in responding to Mr X's complaint which is a suitable remedy. Hertfordshire County Council (24 013 678) Summary: The Council was at fault for its record keeping regarding Mr Y's care. This has caused uncertainty about whether carers are justifiably ending care calls early and about the care Mr Y received. The Council was not at fault for the other aspects of the complaint. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise, make a payment for the uncertainty caused and remind the care provider to ensure its carers properly record notes in customers care logs London Borough of Harrow (24 021 831) Summary: Mrs Y complained the Council failed to account for relevant evidence in its decisions about Mr X's care and support. Mrs Y also complained the Council moved Mr X to a new residential care setting without considering his best interests; incorrectly decided Mr X's housing benefit (HB) entitlement; and failed to consider a complaint about Mr X's care assessment. We found the Council at fault for avoidable delay in approaching its funding panel for additional resources. We cannot say this led to Mr X's first placement breaking down, but believe Mrs Y experienced avoidable frustration and uncertainty. We have not found the Council at fault for how it accounted for Mr X's best interests when considering a move. We have found some fault with how the Council scheduled the best interests meeting and how it communicated with Mrs Y about Mr X's transition. We found the Council at fault for being unable to confirm it had registered Mrs Y's HB concerns as an appeal, and for failing to consider Mrs Y's escalated complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise, review Mr X's care and support plan, and pass Mrs Y's HB appeal to the Tribunal. Nottinghamshire County Council (24 022 851) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council refused to fully fund her father to remain at home receiving his current 24-hour care provision. We found no fault by the Council. Staffordshire County Council (25 003 535) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's delay in completing financial assessment for Mr Y and telling him how much he should contribute towards his care costs. We found fault with the Council. This fault caused injustice to Mr Y and Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise, discuss with Mrs X details of Mr Y's repayment plan and make a symbolic payment to recognise Mr Y's distress. Essex County Council (25 007 190) Summary: Mr X complained the Council stopped his direct payments, withdrew an increase in care hours, and gave confusing information. I find no fault in the way the Council made its decision about the direct payments. There was a minor error in the Council's complaint response, but there is no evidence that this caused Mr X significant injustice. Avon Homecare Ltd (25 009 869) Summary: Mr A complains about the Avon Healthcare in relation to care provided to Mrs B which he said led to her death. We will not investigate the complaint as we would be unlikely to find fault or add to the work Avon Healthcare has already carried out. London Borough of Havering (25 014 086) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about how the Council commissioned Care Home managed her late uncle, Mr Y's, belongings. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons why she did not complain to us sooner. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (25 016 982) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a refused blue badge application. There is not enough evidence of fault with the Council's decision making. Devon County Council (24 016 793) Summary: We upheld a complaint from Miss B about the Council's management of her son's social care needs during a disruptive period in his life in 2024. We considered fault by the Council contributed to his distress, and that of Miss B. A delay in resolving the question of whether he could consent to Miss B's complaint also added unnecessarily to her time and trouble. The Council accepted these findings. At the end of this statement, we set out action it agreed to take to remedy this injustice. Hertfordshire County Council (24 019 441) Summary: Miss X complained the Council refused to pay for essential care and support family members gave to Miss Y between October 2023 and March 2024 when Miss Y's care package from a care provider broke down. The Council was at fault for failing to clearly set out what information it needed to consider Miss X's request for a backdated direct payment at the material time she raised it. This caused uncertainty and avoidable frustration. The Council was also at fault for delay responding to Miss X's complaint. It agreed to apologise and provide a written decision on the backdated direct payment request. Liverpool City Council (25 003 656) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to tell his father about charges for a short term residential care placement when he was discharged from hospital. We found the Council failed to provide clear and timely information which caused the family distress as they received an unexpected charge. The Council has agreed to apologise and, due to the particular circumstances involved in this case, waive the fees. Somerset Council (25 004 380) Summary: The Council was at fault for allowing a care provider to charge a top up fee for care charges. As a result Mrs X paid a top up fee she should not have had to pay. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise and refund Mrs X the top up fees she paid. Birmingham City Council (25 011 746) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. We cannot settle the dispute about what is in the person's best interests and where she should live. So, it is unlikely that an Ombudsman investigation would achieve a different outcome, and we cannot say the person must return home. The court is better placed to consider this complaint as it can decide where the person should live. London Borough of Harrow (25 012 121) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adaptations carried out in Miss X's home in line with a disabled facilities grant. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate. Birmingham City Council (25 013 140) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about works offered under a disabled facilities grant. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. The recommended works changed but the Council made its decisions following the proper process. North East Lincolnshire Council (25 013 641) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about work carried out as part of a Disabled Facilities Grant. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Jasmine Healthcare Limited (25 014 845) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Care Provider's Care Home losing his mother, Mrs Y's, items and not meeting her care needs. This is because we would not be able to add to the Care Provider's investigation, we would not be able to achieve the outcome Mr X wants and there is another body better placed to consider his complaint. Bupa Care Homes (BNH) Limited (25 001 250) Summary: The care provider's terms and conditions allow it excessive discretion to increase fees above a stated annual increase. That created anxiety and uncertainty for Mrs X when she was planning for Mrs A's long-term care. BUPA says it is reviewing its terms and conditions. It should do so in line with the CMA guidance to ensure fairness and within a defined time period. In addition it should offer Mrs X a symbolic payment of £300 to recognise the uncertainty she has suffered as a result of its current practice. Birmingham City Council (25 002 191) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision-making regarding Mr Y's care plan. He complained the Council should increase the provision for Mr Y. He says this increased Mr Y's isolation. He complained the Council did not provide transport for Mr Y to attend a day centre. He says this caused him unnecessary stress. We find no fault with the Council's decision-making regarding the amount of provision in Mr Y's care plan. We do find fault with the Council's decision-making regarding transport for Mr Y. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, make a fresh decision and take service improvement action. Norfolk County Council (25 002 756) Summary: Miss X complained the Council has discriminated against her due to her disability and has failed to meet her request for reasonable adjustments. Miss X also complained about errors in her financial assessment in relation to her benefit details and her Disability Related Expenditure. And that the Council stopped her direct payments for four weeks without any notice or explanation. We found the Council's failings in communication and the delay in responding to Miss X's correspondence are fault. As was the failure to correctly update Miss X's address on all of its systems. These faults have caused Miss X a significant injustice and impacted her health and wellbeing. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Miss X. Sunderland City Council (25 004 743) Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of his late uncle, Mr Y, about his care charges, the actions of his social worker and delays in moving him out of a care home. Mr X also says the Council dismissed his earlier attempts to complain. He says these matters caused financial difficulty for Mr Y and says this contributed to wards his heart attack. We have found fault in the Councils actions for the delay in completing a Mental Capacity Assessment. The Council has agreed to issue Mr X with an apology and pay a financial remedy. Derbyshire County Council (25 008 373) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about how the Council carried out safeguarding enquiries. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 011 877) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to issue Mr X a Blue Badge. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Derbyshire County Council (25 012 510) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about Council care charges to his late mother Mrs X, care staff breaking her door lock, inadequate care, and it influencing her to cut contact with him. There is insufficient significant injustice to Mr X from the matters complained of to warrant an investigation. Investigating care staff or officer influence over Mrs X would not achieve a worthwhile outcome. Oxfordshire County Council (25 013 519) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the standard of care staff delivered to her mother, Mrs Y, at the Council's Care Home. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons why Miss X did not complain to us sooner. Nottingham City Council (25 000 183) Summary: We found fault with the Council for its poor communication with Mr X about reducing his care hours, reducing his care hours without assessment or suitable explanation and failure to provide his full social care provision. The Council's fault caused Mr X to source more care hours than the Council funded, uncertainty and distress for six weeks about what provision would be put in place and six months without full social care provision. The Council has already settled the outstanding balance with Mr X's care provider which directly addresses the reduction in his care hours. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and provide payments for the distress, uncertainty and loss of service caused by the Council's fault. Southampton City Council (25 014 934) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to implement its unreasonable and vexatious complainants policy. Mr X's complaint has been made late and there is no good reason to consider it now. The issues raised also relate to court proceedings, which are outside the Ombudsman's remit. 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