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. Leicestershire County Council (24 021 800) Summary: We do not consider Leicestershire County Council acted with fault when it decided certain care homes could meet Mrs D’s assessed needs on discharge from hospital. The Council did not act with fault when it decided she should pay a top-up, despite jointly funding that placement with the NHS Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Integrated Care Board under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act. However, the Council’s communication around the Section 117 top-up arrangement and invoices amounted to fault which caused Mrs D’s daughter, Miss D, inconvenience and stress. But we consider the Council has already remedied that injustice to her. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (25 004 997) Summary: Mrs X complained about the care her father, Mr Z, received in his home, in the lead up to his death. She complained carers failed to treat pressure sores on his body, and suffered unnecessary pain, as a result. We have found fault in the Care Provider acting on behalf of the Council’s actions for failing to follow Mr Z’s care plan, its procedures for recording and reporting skin integrity issues and for delaying in responding to Mrs X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to write to Mrs X to apologise, pay her a financial payment and complete service improvements. OHC Services Limited (25 012 676) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Care Provider failing to provide support to her father, Mr Y, in the bathroom. This is because a further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and subsequently, we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants. London Borough of Bexley (25 013 275) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council handled her Disabled Facilities Grant request for her son, Y. We will also not investigate her complaint about how the Council handled its statutory housing and safeguarding duties. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation. Brighton & Hove City Council (25 014 116) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled an adult social care complaint. We already considered the substantive matter under a previous case reference, and it is not proportionate to consider subsequent complaint-handling in isolation as there is nothing meaningful we could achieve. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (25 014 230) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s action relating to, and its decision to close, a safeguarding enquiry. We are unlikely to find fault with the Council. London Borough of Harrow (25 014 232) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X’s Blue Badge application. This is because there is enough evidence of fault, in the Council’s decision, to justify investigating. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 014 310) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s safeguarding involvement with Mr Y shortly before his death. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. Wakefield Metropolitan District Council (25 014 394) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to approve adaptations to facilitate an extra bedroom for Miss B’s child. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Liverpool City Council (25 014 642) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Council completing a financial assessment. The Council upheld the complaint and has agreed to remedy Mr X’s injustice by offering a symbolic payment. It has also apologised and committed to making improvements to its service. There are no wider public interest issues to justify investigating and further investigation by us would therefore not be proportionate. Manchester City Council (25 015 974) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a safeguarding enquiry concerning his parent plus the Council’s decision not to share information with him. There is no evidence of a significant injustice. And there is another body better placed to consider. Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (25 017 157) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. The Council followed its process to consider the concerns, and has explained why it could not share its findings with the referrer. London Borough of Islington (24 007 618) Summary: Mr B complained that the London Borough of Islington, North Central London ICB and North London NHS Foundation Trust did not assess or meet Mrs X’s aftercare needs after she was detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. We find fault with the Council, the ICB and the Trust. They should have completed a comprehensive assessment of Mrs X’s needs when her detention ended, and should have produced a clear plan of how all her needs would be met. The failure to do so has caused confusion, stress and frustration. The organisations have agreed to take action to address the injustice. Buckinghamshire Council (25 002 273) Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s assessment and handling of Ms X’s late mother’s care charges. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 003 684) Summary: There was fault by the Council as Mr and Mrs X were not sent a letter about a Piece of Mind charge that had to be paid in the accommodation they rent. Before the complaint was considered by the Ombudsman, the Council refunded the charge for the period before it told the complainants about the charge. This remedies the injustice of not receiving the correct information. There is no fault in the Council invoicing for the charge now the complainants are aware it is part of the tenancy for the flat they live in. Birmingham City Council (25 005 798) Summary: There was no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision not to allow contact between Ms X and Y. Surecare (Croydon and Sutton) (25 012 250) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about privately arranged adult social care at home. This is because the injustice, frustration at not being listened to, is not enough to justify our involvement. It is also unlikely an investigation would reach a different outcome. The complainant wanted the Care Provider to withdraw its service, and that has since happened. East Sussex County Council (25 012 500) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has pursued payment of outstanding care home fees as this is being pursued through a court. Hartlepool Borough Council (25 015 031) Summary: We will not investigate X’s complaint about the Council identifying them incorrectly and its decision about X’s contact with the Council. This is because we cannot add to the Council’s previous investigation and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 016 037) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about actions taken by the Council to provide support when Mr B became ill and was admitted to hospital. We could not add to the previous investigation by the Council. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (25 018 866) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s Care Home losing her late mother, Mrs Y’s, rings. This is because a further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and there are other bodies better placed to consider the matter she complains of. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (25 005 861) Summary: We found fault with the Council for delays in completing a care assessment and putting in place Direct Payments for Ms X. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her a symbolic financial gesture for the distress and lost opportunity the Council’s fault caused. We also found fault with the Council failing to put in place the correct Direct Payments from October 2025 to January 2026. The Council agreed to pay the underpaid Direct Payments into Ms X’s Direct Payment account. Medway Council (25 010 177) Summary: Ms Y complained on behalf of her late father, Mr X, that the Trust and Council failed to assess Mr X properly before he left hospital, that Mr X was transferred to a care home that was not suitable for him and could not meet his needs, and that Mr X sustained an unexplained eye injury. Ms Y also complained the Trust failed to protect Mr X’s dignity. We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint as it is unlikely we would find fault, or add to the responses Ms Y has already received from the organisations. Bristol City Council (25 015 032) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay responding via its professional escalation process about contractual issues. The issues have been resolved since Miss B complained to us. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. Shropshire Council (25 015 316) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about adult social care charges. This is because her complaint is late and we have seen no good reason why she could not have complained to us sooner. Warrington Council (25 017 633) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council declining her application for a disabled person’s parking permit. This is because her complaint is late and there are no good reasons why she did not complain sooner. London Borough of Barnet (25 018 360) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about adult social care charges and the Council’s decision to refuse her complaint as late. This is because her complaint about the care charges is late and we have seen no reason why she could not have come to us sooner. We will not investigate the Council’s complaint handling if we are not investigating the substantive issue. Hertfordshire County Council (25 001 169) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s adult safeguarding enquiry. We could not achieve a meaningful outcome by investigating, and the Information Commissioner is best placed to consider complaints about how organisations respond to requests for information. Westminster City Council (25 010 460) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delayed adult social care charges. Although the large debt came as a shock, there is not a significant injustice to justify an Ombudsman investigation. The care fees are due and it leaves the estate in the same position it would be in regardless of any delay. London Borough of Ealing (25 013 287) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his father’s care and social care charges. This is because his complaint is late and we have seen no good reason why he could not have complained to us sooner. Hertfordshire County Council (25 014 003) Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s social worker reporting them to the Office of the Public Guardian. This is mostly because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and further investigation by us is unlikely to achieve a worthwhile outcome. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (25 014 399) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in processing Mrs X’s disabled facilities grant. This is because the complaint is late. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint regarding the Council’s policy regarding disabled facilities grant because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (25 015 989) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to investigate Mr X’s concerns. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Durham County Council (25 027 036) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to complete a continuing healthcare checklist. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Staffordshire County Council (25 003 812) Summary: Ms Y complained about the Council’s financial assessment into Mr X’s care costs. She says that this has not been completed correctly and this has impacted Mr X by reducing his income so he cannot support his wife. We found the Council at fault which caused Mr X injustice. It should apologise, make payment to Mr X and reassess Mr X’s financial contributions. Leeds City Council (25 005 935) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her care and support needs. We do not find fault in how the Council assessed and met Miss X’s needs, contributed to decisions on her housing situation, responded when her care ended, or in its general communication. We do find fault in the Council’s failure to inform Miss X of changes to her support arrangements in April 2024 and in its initial complaint response, which did not accurately explain what had occurred. However, these faults did not cause Miss X a significant injustice, and no remedy is required. Pilgrims’ Friend Society (25 013 975) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Care Provider incorrectly charging her mother, Mrs Y. This is because there is not enough injustice to warrant an investigation and we would not be able to add to the Care Provider’s investigation. West Northamptonshire Council (25 014 171) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a neighbourhood concern about the welfare of an individual. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 014 529) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue an Occupational Therapist recommended walker. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation London Borough of Ealing (25 015 743) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council is wrong to refuse to treat the care she receives at night as a Disability Related Expense (DRE). This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation. London Borough of Newham (25 016 629) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a delay in carrying out an adult social care assessment and adult social care charges. This is because her complaint is late and we have seen no reason why she could not have come to us sooner. Wiltshire Council (25 022 523) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about adult social care charges. This is because her complaint is late and we have seen no good reason why she could not have come to us sooner. 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