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 Newham (24 019 876) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to block Mr X's direct payment account. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement. Trafford Council (24 021 088) Summary: We will not continue our investigation. This is because the Council has taken action to resolve the main issue. Miss X has some concerns about the complaints process itself but we are unlikely to achieve a worthwhile outcome by investigating this part of the complaint. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (25 000 692) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's refusal to issue her with a blue badge. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by investigating now. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (25 013 274) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about adult social care, because the care package was arranged and funded by the NHS. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (25 014 256) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to respond to a complaint via its contractual arrangement's dispute resolution process rather than its complaints procedure. The Council remedied any injustice caused when it investigated the issues. It is unlikely, on balance, we could achieve more. Devon County Council (25 014 361) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of Miss X's application to renew a disabled parking permit. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision to warrant investigation. Crown Care IV Limited (25 014 735) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint that she was falsely accused of being racist. This is because it is unlikely a further investigation by this office could add to the response already provided via the care provider's own investigation of the matter. Essex County Council (25 017 108) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint that an occupational therapy report completed in 2022 contained inaccurate information. This is because, due to the significant passage of time since the matter complained about, it would not be possible to carry out a full and fair investigation into the matter now. Kent County Council (25 010 131) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged lack of adult social care involvement with Mr Y. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigation by the Ombudsman. London Borough of Barnet (25 011 589) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's delay processing a direct debit form for to start taking payments for care charges. The Council remedied the injustice caused when it investigated the complaint. We cannot achieve more. North Yorkshire Council (25 012 751) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's role managing Mr B's property and financial affairs. The Office of the Public Guardian or the Court of Protection is better placed to consider this complaint. North Yorkshire Council (25 014 108) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council failing to safeguard his relative. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and a further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Cornwall Council (25 014 390) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial assessment for contribution toward adult social care costs. The Council has followed the correct law, guidance and policy to make its decision. So, it is unlikely we would find evidence of fault, even though the complainant disagrees with the Council's decision. An investigation is unlikely to add to the Council's investigation or reach a different outcome. London Borough of Barnet (24 013 932) Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to secure support hours set out in his care and support plan. We find the Council at fault causing frustration and uncertainty for Mr X. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to reflect the injustice caused, ensure the support hours are put in place and consider reimbursing Mr X for the costs he has incurred. Thurrock Council (24 014 300) Summary: I found fault by the Trust in terms of their communication with Mr Y's family and their planning for his discharge from hospital. This meant Mr Y was discharged without appropriate care in place. The Trust will apologise and pay Mr Y and his daughter, Mrs X, a financial remedy. They will also take appropriate remedial action to prevent similar problems occurring in future. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (25 005 803) Summary: Ms X complains about the Council's actions following Y's transition into adult social care. We found the Council underfunded direct payments and failed to provide clear care and support plans. It also delayed providing a complaint response. This is fault. It caused undue distress to Ms X and disrupted the care Y was entitled to receive. The Council agreed actions to remedy the injustice caused. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (25 007 767) Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Miss X's complaint about the Council's response to a safeguarding concern. This is because the Council has completed its enquiry, held a safeguarding case conference, and responded to the concerns raised. The financial issues that led to the alert have been considered under a separate complaint. London Borough of Islington (25 007 795) Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to act in line with the Shared Lives agreement following a serious incident involving the service user, Y. We found fault in the Council's planning and communication with Ms X. This caused Ms X significant distress, and she felt she lost autonomy in her own home. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms X and review its procedures to remedy the injustice Ms X experienced. London Borough of Camden (25 012 921) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to investigate Miss X's safeguarding concerns. The Council's decision has not caused Miss X a significant injustice and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our involvement. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (25 013 904) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council charged Miss X for her care costs. Part of the complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to exercise discretion to consider it now. For the remainder of the complaint there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our involvement. Oxfordshire County Council (25 014 548) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered and responded to safeguarding concerns. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. The Information Commissioner's Office and the Court of Protection are better placed to consider other parts of the complaint. AAT Quality Care Agency Ltd (25 017 387) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged damage to a door. Complaints about damage to property are for the courts. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (25 000 579) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's delay in carrying out a financial assessment for Mr Y and its actions in pursuing the debt after Mr Y had died. The Council has already provided apologies for the injustice caused by fault and explained service improvements it will make, and we could not achieve a more meaningful outcome by investigating the matter further. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (25 005 749) Summary: Ms X complained the Council has wrongly stopped funding overseas travel for her and her daughter, Miss Y, which they have used as respite care for many years. She complained the replacement respite care the Council has offered will not meet Miss Y's needs. There was fault by the Council. It failed to keep a record of an earlier decision it made to stop funding the overseas travel. It also did not suitably evidence or explain how it considered the replacement respite care options will meet Miss Y's needs. Because of the fault, Ms X suffered distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay the symbolic payment it has offered if it has not already done so. It has also agreed to arrange a reassessment of Miss Y's respite care needs and issue a staff briefing. Staffordshire County Council (25 007 820) Summary: Ms X complained a care home the Council commissioned for Mrs Y used restraint inappropriately, causing Mrs Y bruising and avoidable distress. We upheld the complaint. There was a failure to identify restraint was being used, a lack of staff knowledge, poor analysis of records and a failure to ensure the deprivation of Mrs Y's liberty was authorised by the proper legal process. The care home's complaint response was also inaccurate which caused Ms X avoidable distress and frustration. The Council will issue an apology, symbolic payments and provide evidence of improvements to the care home's practices. Somerset Council (25 013 078) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint about the Council's handling of Mr C's care planning and care charges. Part of the complaint is late, and there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating the remaining part. We will also not investigate her complaint about the Council's communications about these matters. It is unlikely our involvement would achieve a different outcome. London Borough of Enfield (25 014 917) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to stop Mr X's direct payments. This is because the complaint is late; it would have been reasonable for Mr X to complain sooner. West Northamptonshire Council (25 000 039) Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's handling of adaptations and equipment and about poor communication and complaint handling. There was some delay by the Council in providing specialist equipment, which was fault. It has already apologised and made a symbolic payment to reflect the avoidable distress and inconvenience. This is an appropriate remedy and so no further actions are recommended. Oxfordshire County Council (25 000 913) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered Ms X's Disabled Facilities Grant application. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Millennium Care (UK) Ltd (25 001 174) Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Miss X's complaint about charges deducted and funds owed by a care provider. This is because the complaint concerns a financial dispute about care charges, and it is reasonable to expect Miss X to pursue the matter through the courts. London Borough of Lewisham (25 010 568) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's refusal to install sound insulation in her son, Mr Y's flat because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement. The complaints about how the Council considered the flat was suitable for Mr Y when offered, and whether it met appropriate building standards, are late and we could not achieve a worthwhile outcome by investigating now. Nottinghamshire County Council (25 012 909) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council assessed Mr X's ability to contribute to costs for his care and support. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (25 013 273) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to apply a property disregard because there is not enough evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify investigating. West Sussex County Council (25 013 442) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a Council decision that it will no longer accept his relative, Ms Y, as his advocate during his adult social care support planning and reviews. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. East Sussex County Council (25 013 508) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to refuse a Blue Badge application. This is because there is not enough evidence off fault to warrant our involvement. Worcestershire County Council (25 014 636) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision a safeguarding concern raised by Miss X did not meet the threshold for a safeguarding enquiry. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. 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