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. Kent County Council (25 005 438) Summary: Mrs B complained about the Council's failure to approve 2:1 support for her son Mr C at one of his placements for over a year. We found fault in the actions of the Council which caused Mrs B frustration and distress. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and increase the symbolic payment to her to £500. City of Wolverhampton Council (25 007 939) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about an allegation of discrimination and safeguarding issues in the Council's handling of Miss X's Disabled Facilities Grant application. This is because Miss X has commenced court proceedings. The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. Hampshire County Council (25 008 975) Summary: Mr X complained about repeated failures of Hampshire County Council and NHS Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care Board to work together. He complained this caused: a prolonged delay in discharging his wife from hospital; and, his wife to be left without funding for necessary night-time care. We found fault with the Council and the ICB for failing to manage a funding dispute adequately. This caused an avoidable delay in Mrs X's discharge from hospital which, in turn, caused avoidable stress and frustration. We have not found fault in the way each organisation considered Mrs X's night‑time needs against relevant eligibility criteria. The Council and the ICB have agreed to take actions to address the injustice their fault caused. Norfolk County Council (25 010 912) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's role in the maintenance of a faulty bath-lift that caused the complainant to have an accident in June 2023. The complaint is late. Birmingham City Council (25 012 770) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions relating to X's request for direct payments for care and support and its poor communication. The Council has upheld the complaint and provided an adequate remedy for X's injustice. There are no wider public interest issues to justify our investigation. Kent County Council (25 012 779) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council decided what was proportionate action in the circumstances. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would add to the Council's investigation or lead to a different outcome. North Northamptonshire Council (25 012 914) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council decided what was proportionate action in the circumstances. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would add to the Council's investigation or lead to a different outcome. Birmingham City Council (24 016 538) Summary: Mr Y complains about the Council's poor handling of his child's transition from Children's Services to Adult Social Care. Mr Y also complains about the Council's handling of his complaint. The Council has now upheld all aspects of Mr Y's complaint and there is no further fault for us to find. Our investigation has therefore focussed on the Council's remedy. We find the remedy already provided to be proportionate and ask the Council to send evidence that the agreed outcomes have been completed. The Orders Of St. John Care Trust (25 000 898) Summary: Mrs X complained about the quality of care provided to her mother, Ms Y, by The Orders of St John Care Trust when she resided in Goodson Lodge Care Centre. We found the Care Provider's actions did not cause injustice to Ms Y. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (25 005 077) Summary: We find fault by West London NHS Trust and London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham in terms of their delivery of aftercare services to which Mr X was entitled under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983. This fault caused Mr X uncertainty and distress. The Trust and Council will apologise to Mr X and the Trust will pay him a financial remedy. The Trust and Council will also ensure Mr X has an appropriate section 117 aftercare plan in place and an allocated care coordinator. Surrey County Council (25 005 242) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's actions following her annual review. We find fault in the Council's failure to provide copies of final assessments in a timely way, its poor communication and complaint handling, and its failure to clearly act on or explain decisions following the January 2025 review. I also found fault in the Council's handling and recording of contingency planning in relation to Miss X's upcoming surgery. These faults caused Miss X avoidable distress, uncertainty, and time and trouble in pursuing information and support. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Miss X, and take steps to improve its services. Essex County Council (25 013 677) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council completed a financial assessment. The Council remedied the injustice caused when it investigated Miss B's complaint. West Sussex County Council (24 021 739) Summary: Mrs X complained about delays in the Council's actions related to her son, Mr Y's, adult social care assessment. We found fault because the Council took too long to begin and progress with the assessment process. This caused avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty for Mrs X and meant Mr Y's assessment remained incomplete. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council will apologise to Mrs X, complete the care planning process and make a payment to her. It will make a payment to Mr Y if it assesses this is due to him. Priory CC130 Limited aka Care Concern Limited (24 023 260) Summary: Mrs Y complains the Care Provider did not deduct Funded Nursing Care (FNC) contribution payments from her father's care home fees. During our investigation, we established the Care Provider had not received these payments. We found the Care Provider at fault for ambiguity in its contract about FNC payments and for Mrs Y's time and trouble to get clarity on the payment situation with this investigation, causing frustration. The Care Provider has agreed to apologise, pay a symbolic payment to Mrs Y and arrange a meeting to make a decision about her father's care and fees going forward. It has also agreed to review and update its contract about how it treats FNC payments. Reading Borough Council (25 001 921) Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to ensure Ms Y had support to meet her eligible care needs between January and June 2025 and for repeatedly suggesting Mrs X consider direct payments. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms Y and Mrs X and make payments to acknowledge the frustration, lack of respite and missed provision the faults caused. London Borough of Merton (25 003 108) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's handling of concerns about disrepair and risk in Ms Y's supported living placement. He said she was at risk of harm and did not receive the support she needed. We found fault by the Council for causing delays in the statutory assessment processes for Ms Y, in its complaints handling, and it delayed progressing repairs with her landlord. As a result, Ms Y experienced a risk of harm and had a loss of care and support. Mr X also experienced an injustice. The Council agreed to apologise and make payment to acknowledge the impact its faults had on them and make service improvements. Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (25 003 470) Summary: Miss X complains the Council poorly supported her and her father, Mr Y, during his admission into hospital and when he was later discharged home. Miss X says as a result her father did not receive the right care and support once he was discharged home. Miss X also says it caused her distress and frustration as her fathers registered carer. We have found fault in the Councils actions for failing to discuss details of the care provider, give an estimate of costs or provide a financial pack. We have also found the Council failed to discuss care needs with Miss X or return her call. The Council has agreed to issue Miss X with an apology and pay a financial payment. Durham County Council (25 005 117) Summary: Mrs B complains about invoices relating to adult social care support. Mrs B says the Council sent her an invoice late in 2023 and that there were multiple and repeated errors in the invoices from 2024. We have found fault in relation to the late invoice but there were no errors in the later invoices. The Council has agreed to apologise and to carry out a service improvement. Bath and North East Somerset Council (25 005 654) Summary: Miss X complained the Council has wrongly assessed that she has to pay a significant charge for her care which she cannot afford. She complained the Council is also seeking to recover backdated charges. Miss X says this has led her to cancel the care provider so she is now without any care. In addition Miss X complained the Council failed to ensure care provided by the care provider was adequate or appropriate. We found the errors in the Council's financial assessment are fault. The failings in the care and support provided by Company Z is also fault. The Council has apologised and made an appropriate offer to remedy the injustice caused. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 014 712) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council refused his application for a blue badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant us investigating. Durham County Council (24 012 474) Summary: Mr B complained about how the Council and Trust assessed and planned Ms C's care, and arranged discharge from hospital. We found fault with the way the Council handled Ms C's care assessment and hospital discharge, causing distress to Ms C and distress and uncertainty to Mr B. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr B, make a symbolic payment, and make service improvements. We found no fault in the Trust's actions. North Lincolnshire Council (25 000 609) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council refused to fund Mr Y's care because he chose to move into a care home with his wife rather than staying on the planned rehabilitation pathway after fracturing his hip. This caused distress and impacted Mr Y financially. There was no fault in the Council's decision not to fund Mr Y's care when he chose not to stay on the rehabilitation pathway. Surrey County Council (25 001 228) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council refused to fund her father's placement under the 'Discharge to Assess' pathway. The Council was at fault for how it assessed her father's eligibility for funding. It gave Mrs X contradictory information, and its poor communication and record-keeping created avoidable confusion. This caused Mrs X inconvenience and distress. The Council will now take action to address her injustice. Leicester City Council (25 001 322) Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council responded to Miss X's reports of safeguarding concerns related to her late father. The Council was also not at fault for how it considered Miss X's request for a Safeguarding Adult Review. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (25 002 204) Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed progressing her Disabled Facilities Grant application and did not provide her with a report regarding its survey of her home. Miss X said the Council's actions caused considerable avoidable distress and upset to herself and her disabled sons. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to provide Miss X with an apology and a financial remedy. North Yorkshire Council (25 004 640) Summary: We have found fault in the Council's actions. The Council failed to provide a contingency care plan for Mr D, there was poor communication and there were delays in providing support. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay a symbolic sum, review Mr D's care plan and carry out a service improvement. Pepperhall Limited (25 006 230) Summary: Mrs X complained that Valley Court Care Home wrongly charged for 1:1 care for Mr X. She complains that although they were told Mr X required 1:1 care, the Care Home did not tell them Mr X would be responsible for the cost of this additional care. We found the Care Home's failure to clearly set out the arrangements for the 1:1 care in writing before the care commenced was fault. However, we do not consider this fault caused Mrs X or Ms Y an injustice. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (25 012 370) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charging for adult social care. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council completed the financial assessment and decided how much Mr C must pay. The Council followed the relevant law, guidance and policy to make its decision. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (25 012 400) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's delay in attending his community treatment order recall. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has already taken, and it is unlikely an investigation by us would add anything further. Oxfordshire County Council (25 017 455) Summary: The Council was not at fault for the delay in providing the support detailed in Ms X's Care Act assessment. The Council has made efforts to provide the support and suggested several ways to move forward. It has also offered to carry out a reassessment and has explained to Ms X what information it needs to deliver the support detailed in the assessment. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (24 012 182) Summary: Ms Y complained about how the Council dealt with her mother's, Mrs X, care charges and about her complaints with the standard of care provided to Mrs X. There were some faults by the Council which caused injustice to Mrs X and Ms Y. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused. Somerset Council (25 001 162) Summary: Ms Y complained the Council issued a poor quality care plan and wrongly decided to reduce Ms X's care package. We find no fault in the Council's decision-making to reduce Ms X's care package. We find the Council at fault for issuing a poor quality care plan which caused injustice. We are satisfied the action taken by the Council has remedied the injustice to Ms X. Durham County Council (25 004 361) Summary: Ms Y complained the Council failed to arrange transport for her daughter to attend a day centre. We find fault in the Council's handling of the matter, including poor communication, delay, inadequate consideration of the circumstances, and a failure to properly address the unmet transport and care support needs. This caused ongoing uncertainty and distress for Ms Y. The Council has agreed to apologise, address the outstanding support gap, make a payment to Ms Y, and take action to improve its practice. Leicester City Council (25 012 616) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's decision not to issue concessionary bus passes for her daughter's care workers. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating. City of Doncaster Council (25 012 681) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions in relation to a dispute about Ms Y's mental capacity and best interests. Other bodies, including the courts, are best placed to consider the matters at the centre of the complaint. We could not, in any event, achieve a meaningful outcome by investigating the matter. London Borough of Havering (25 012 711) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council explained care costs and associated fees to the complainant. We cannot add to the previous investigation completed by the Council. Services for Independent Living (25 004 893) Summary: We will not continue our investigation. This is because we are unlikely to achieve a worthwhile outcome. Warwickshire County Council (25 010 281) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council failing to improve its services following the care it provided to her late mother, Mrs Y. This is because it is unlikely 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