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. Nottinghamshire County Council (25 007 312) Summary: We did not find fault with the Council for how it considered Mrs X’s mother’s access to care from December 2024 to April 2025, including completion of care assessments. We found fault with the Council taking three and a half months to complete the financial assessment for Mrs X’s mother’s care home costs following it agreeing to the placement; this was a delay. The Council agreed to apologise for the uncertainty and distress caused by its fault. West Sussex County Council (25 008 180) Summary: Ms X complains the Council wrongly decided she could not use her direct payment allowance to fund moving house. She says this caused her unnecessary stress and financial strain. We find no fault with the Council’s decision-making. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (25 010 452) Summary: Mrs X complained about the financial assessment carried out by the Council for her father Mr Z. She says the Council did not send her the assessment or invoices to her address. She is also unhappy with the complaint handling and debt collection carried out by the Council. She reports the complaint caused her father distress and anxiety. We found the Council at fault, which caused Mr Z injustice. The Council should make payment and apologise to both Mrs X and Mr Z. City of Doncaster Council (25 014 924) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about use of a pre-paid card for adult social care costs. Whether there was any fault by the Council in earlier explanations of the use of the card, does not change the outcome. Mr D has spent money from the card for items other than his wife’s care support and is responsible to repay those public funds. Coventry City Council (25 015 881) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s cleaning and decluttering of Mr Y’s property. This is because the Council has already taken, or offered to take, suitable action to remedy the issues raised. There is nothing further we would add or recommend were we to also investigate and so it does not warrant a further investigation by this office. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (25 016 355) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr Y’s charges for care. The Council has already provided a suitable remedy to recognise the injustice caused by fault, and we could not achieve a more meaningful outcome by investigating the matter further. Redcar & Cleveland Council (25 017 200) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an adult social care and support needs assessment. An investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome for Mr X, and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider complaints about data handling. Lincolnshire County Council (25 018 956) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charges the Council says Mrs B owes for her contribution to care costs. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Coventry City Council (25 024 304) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the conduct of the Council’s Social Worker following an incident in which Ms X was a victim of abuse. This is because a further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and subsequently, we are unlikely to achieve any worthwhile outcome. Derby City Council (25 012 923) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the way in which Derby City Council and NHS Derby and Derbyshire Integrated Care Board dealt with her father, Mr Y’s, accommodation as we would be unlikely to find fault. Kent County Council (25 016 628) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to safeguarding concerns. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. London Borough of Islington (25 018 339) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charges the Council says Mr B owes for the care he received. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (25 018 810) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of the Council’s former officer and information it holds about Mr B. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Royal Borough of Greenwich (25 019 160) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s Freedom Pass application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault, in the Council’s decision, to justify investigating. We will also not investigate the complaint about staff conduct, as further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. West Sussex County Council (25 002 286) Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of his father, Mr Y, the Council detained him against his will while it completed a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards assessment. Mr X says this led to his father incurring unnecessary care home fees. We have found fault in the actions of the Council in relation to the information it supplied Mr Y. The Council has agreed to write to Mr X to issue an apology and pay a financial payment. Sheffield City Council (25 007 028) Summary: Mr B complained about the Council’s action in respect of the care of his mother Mrs C. We have not found any fault in the way the Council made its decision that Mrs C should stay in her own home with a care package, the time it took to find a care home, or the care provided by the care agency. Athena Healthcare (SNR) Limited (25 000 798) Summary: Mrs X complained about the charging and care service provided by Athena Healthcare for Miss Y. Mrs X has disputed the charges owed and is unhappy with some care Miss Y received before her death. She says that this caused her added distress while Miss Y was going through end-of-life care. We found Athena Healthcare at fault. It should apologise and refund some of the charges paid. Athena Healthcare (SNR) Limited (25 000 798a) Summary: Mrs X complained about the charging and care service provided by Athena Healthcare for Miss Y. Mrs X has disputed the charges owed and is unhappy with some care Miss Y received before her death. She says that this caused her added distress while Miss Y was going through end-of-life care. We found Athena Healthcare at fault. It should apologise and refund some of the charges paid. London Borough of Croydon (25 007 469) Summary: Mrs Z complained the Council failed to provide evidence to show it is seeking to recover the correct amount from her grandmother’s estate for unpaid care services. There is no fault by the Council as it correctly assessed and charged and notified Mrs Z’s grandmother who did not make any payments for the care received since 2019. Somerset Council (25 007 609) Summary: Ms X complained the Council wrongly ended her care package for her adult social care needs and did not respond to her concerns. We find no fault in how the Council made its decision and responded to her concerns. Norfolk County Council (25 010 529) Summary: There was fault by the Council. It failed to provide care and support to meet Ms X’s eligible unmet needs between August 2024 and January/February 2025. It failed to ensure Ms X’s transition from commissioned services to a direct payment went smoothly. Complaint responses were superficial, did not address all the issues or offer an adequate remedy for the loss of care and support and avoidable distress. Communication was also below our expected standards. The Council also failed to inform Ms X why she could not use a relative as her personal assistant and failed to process invoices meaning there was a further month where Ms X was without essential domestic support. The Council will apologise and make a payment to reflect the avoidable distress and loss of service. Darlington Borough Council (25 015 568) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the delays in arranging for the complainant to return home following their discharge from hospital or matters about their stay at a care home. These complaints are late and there is no good reason to consider them now. Surrey County Council (25 018 245) Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about the removal of funding for his mother’s care home fees. We are unlikely to find fault by the NHS provider and Council on the key issues. We also consider the NHS provider has taken appropriate action to improve, and an investigation by us would not add to this. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (25 017 234) Summary: Mrs A complains about a Council and NHS Trust regarding her son’s treatment and accommodation under section 117 of the Mental Health Act which she says led to his death. We will not investigate this case as we would be unlikely to add to the work already carried out by the Trust. 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