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. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (25 002 593) Summary: The Council was not at fault for withdrawing Mr X’s respite support. There was also no fault in the Council’s decision not to deviate from its charging policy. It was however at fault for a delay in carrying out a carer’s assessment and delaying the start of support for Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X to remedy the injustice caused. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (25 006 301) Summary: Mrs X complains on behalf of her mother, Mrs Y, about inaccurate information regarding social care charges provided by the Trust and the Council. Mrs X says this led to Mrs Y accepting social care support which she would have rejected, had she known it would be chargeable. Mrs X says an invoice for the services caused upset and distress. She would like the Council to waive the charges. We will not investigate this complaint. An Ombudsman investigation is unlikely to achieve more than the Council’s local complaint investigation. Wiltshire Council (25 017 582) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council delaying moving Miss X to a new placement and having left her in an unsuitable placement for many years. The onset of court action has engaged a permanent legal bar that prevents us from investigating. Leicester City Council (25 017 749) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a social worker disclosing information provided by Mr X to another person. This is a matter of an alleged data breach. The Information Commissioner would be better placed than us to consider it as they have powers to determine if there was a breach, and to impose penalties. We lack similar powers. It would also be reasonable for Mr X to go to court to seek damages in the event that any breach may have affected his commercial interests. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (25 019 676) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a renewal of her blue badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. Cornwall Council (25 022 325) Summary: Ms X complains about the lack of support provided to her late sister to meet her mental health needs. Ms X says her sister would not have taken her own life had she been provided with proper support. We will not investigate this complaint as there is an inquest pending and an investigation may interfere with the inquest. Cheshire East Council (25 006 085) Summary: Ms H complained about the support her father received from a care home commissioned by the Council, and how they communicated with her. She said as a result he did not receive enough equipment, missed out on NHS funding, and she experienced distress. We did not find fault by the Council on the substantive parts of the complaint. However, there was some fault in the communication with Ms H which was not timely or clear. The Council will apologise to her to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty this caused. Newbury Manor Limited (25 007 276) Summary: Mrs X complained about failings in the care her mother, Mrs Y received while a resident at Newbury Manor Nursing Home. We found there is no evidence of fault in the actions of the Care Home. Swindon Borough Council (25 017 538) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charging for adult social care. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council completed the financial assessment. We cannot challenge the decision, even though the complainant disagrees with it. London Borough of Lambeth (25 018 422) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly advised him on how to apply for a Freedom Pass for disabled people and then rejected his claim. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. King Charles Court Limited (25 019 059) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Nursing Home preventing Mr Y from moving to another placement. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Essex County Council (25 019 678) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his child’s respite provision. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Nottinghamshire County Council (24 017 207) Summary: There was fault in some actions of the commissioned care provider which caused injustice. There was also some fault in the Council’s record-keeping for which it has apologised, but which legitimately caused Ms A anxiety and it agrees to go further to recognise that. There is no substantive evidence the Council failed to investigate Ms A’s safeguarding concerns, although it gave less weight to them than she wished. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (25 004 747) Summary: There is insufficient evidence that fault has caused injustice to Mr X. The falls protocol has been enacted when appropriate. There were some concerns about hospital transport but the care provider has worked to resolve those. The Council and care provider have provided evidence that staff are appropriately trained. Kent County Council (25 005 293) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to the care and support of her son. This is because the law does not allow us to investigate matters that were considered as part of court proceedings. We will not investigate the remaining matters for the reasons explained in this statement. Worcestershire County Council (25 006 694) Summary: There was fault by the Council. The Council failed to send invoices for a service users care to his appointee for over 3 years. This has meant a large debt is now owed to the Council. The Council will remedy the complaint by carrying out a financial assessment to decide if Mr X, who lacks capacity to deal with his finances, has the funds to repay the debt. The Council will either write off the debt or propose a payment plan, depending on the outcome of the re-assessment. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 007 904) Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly charged Mr Y for a period after he had moved out of a care home, when he was waiting for confirmation he could remove Mr Y’s belongings. We found the Council’s failure to respond to Mr X’s queries and to properly inform him regarding ending the placement at the care home and any potential costs is fault. The length of time taken to send an invoice for these charges is also fault. These faults have caused Mr X and Mr Y an injustice. The Council will apologise and refund the charges for the period after Mr Y left the care home. London Borough of Merton (25 009 024) Summary: The Council acknowledges fault in failing to formally notify Miss X of a change in care provider. It further acknowledges shortcomings in the way it managed her complaint about this. Gloucestershire County Council (25 011 779) Summary: Mr X complained the Council misled his late father, Mr Y, about the costs of care and delayed his financial assessment. He also complained the Council asked Mr Y to sign documents he did not have the mental capacity to understand. We found the Council at fault for delaying completing a financial assessment for Mr Y and for not properly considering his mental capacity to make decisions about his finances. The Council should repeat its offer to waive some of the care charges and apologise. Milton Keynes Council (25 012 409) Summary: We uphold Mr X’s complaint. The Council took too long to review Mrs X’s care and support and action his request for additional funding for Mrs X while he was unable to care for her temporarily. It also failed to consider a request for residential respite care and took too long to respond to the complaint. This caused avoidable distress and time and trouble for which the Council has apologised and offered an appropriate payment. The Council will re-offer the payment and provide evidence of the changes to services it says it has made. Westminster City Council (25 013 840) Summary: The investigation into this complaint will be discontinued. A care provider, acting on behalf of the Council, acknowledged carers entered Mr X’s home earlier than scheduled and explained the action it had taken to prevent a recurrence. This represents an adequate remedy for the injustice caused. Telford & Wrekin Council (25 016 555) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about disability related expenditure. We are unlikely to find fault with how the Council came do its decision, and it has not yet caused a significant injustice we could investigate anyway. Southend-on-Sea City Council (25 017 038) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a safeguarding matter because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (25 000 902) Summary: We have ended this investigation. There was no evidence when Mr X was discharged from hospital, no evidence Mr X was left without adequate care in place when he left hospital and the Council increased Mr X’s care package. There was not enough evidence of fault to investigate further and there was nothing worthwhile we could achieve by continuing to pursue this matter. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (25 008 868) Summary: Mr X complained about the care provided to his late mother, Mrs Y, by care providers on the Council’s behalf. Mr X also complained the Council failed to act on his reports and safeguarding concerns. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s communication. The Council was at fault for two missed visits to his mother and a carer falling asleep during a shift. The Council was also at fault for its communication with Mr X. This caused Mr X uncertainty and frustration. The Council was not at fault for how it investigated his complaint or in its actions regarding the safeguarding concerns. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and has offered to make him a payment. Buckingham (Bucks OPCO) Limited (25 018 835) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Care Home’s poor care it had delivered to her late father, Mr Y, and its poor communication and record keeping. This is because the complaint is late. There are no good reasons why Mrs X did not complain to us sooner. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (25 007 063) Summary: There was fault by the Council. The Council delayed chasing up the invoices for care until after the service user died. This has left the family with a large debt. A symbolic payment, apology and consideration of whether the debt should be written off if the estate is not able to pay remedies the injustice caused. Derbyshire County Council (25 007 177) Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to adequately assess the late Mrs Y’s needs and in its determination of her personal budget. The Council has agreed to apologise to her representative, Mrs X, for the frustration caused to her and produce an action plan of how it will address the faults identified to improve its service. City of Doncaster Council (25 008 321) Summary: Miss B complained the Council failed to provide her with appropriate support and placed her in a care home that was unsuitable for her needs. There was fault by the Council. It delayed completing a light-touch review of Miss B’s care plan. But this did not cause an injustice to Miss B. I have therefore not made any recommendations to the Council. Brighton & Hove City Council (25 018 525) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to not conduct a safeguarding investigation in relation to her late mother’s care at its nursing home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. London Borough of Lewisham (25 019 504) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s Blue Badge application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault, in the Council’s decision, to justify investigating. Kent County Council (25 019 693) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s Blue Badge application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault, in the Council’s decision, to justify investigating. Devon County Council (25 020 585) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about X’s Blue Badge application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault, in the Council’s decision, 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