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 Ealing (25 006 446) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council charging her late mother, Mrs Y, for a full contribution towards her placement at a care home. This is because the matter has been considered by the courts. The law prevents us from investigating complaints which have already been considered by the courts. Ms X’s complaint is also late and there are no good reasons why she did not complain sooner. Halton Borough Council (25 007 395) Summary: We have found fault in the Council’s actions. The Council failed to properly consider Mrs B’s request for an assessment of her husband under the Mental Health Act 1983 and its communications with Mrs B were poor. This fault has caused distress to Mrs B and her husband. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and her husband and to pay them a small financial remedy. Medway Council (25 009 025) Summary: The Council is at fault in the way it carried out Mr X’s financial assessment and calculated his disability related expenditure (DRE). The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X’s representative, Mrs Y, and complete a review of Mr X’s care plan and a new financial assessment. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (25 011 306) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to install a bath in Miss B’s bathroom. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (25 016 922) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’ adult social care department. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, and there is another body better placed to consider parts of the complaint. London Borough of Enfield (25 018 041) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s unannounced visit at her home. The Council has remedied any injustice through its complaints process. Investigation by us would not achieve anything more. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (25 025 811) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council refusing to initiate a safeguarding investigation in relation to his mother, Mrs Y. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. North Yorkshire Council (24 017 167) Summary: Mr Y complains about several aspects of the Council’s involvement in meeting his care, support and accommodation needs, including the actions of the allocated social worker at the time. We found there was delay in securing advocacy services and delays in providing some minor adaptations to Mr Y’s new property. The Council has agreed to complete the remedial actions listed at the end of this statement. There is no fault in the other parts of the complaint. West Northamptonshire Council (25 006 365) Summary: There was no fault by the Council. It completed a social care assessment within an acceptable timeframe and revised Ms Y’s care and support plan in response to additional information Mrs X provided. The Council involved them both in the assessment and support planning process and Ms Y also had an independent advocate. The Council’s decision that Ms Y did not require residential care was taken without fault and so we have no grounds to criticise it. Brighton & Hove City Council (25 008 935) Summary: Mr X complained the Council was causing unnecessary delays in discharging him from detention under the Mental Health Act 1983 section because it could not find him a suitable place to move to. We discontinued our investigation because progress has now been made and Mr A has withdrawn his complaint. East Sussex County Council (25 010 118) Summary: Miss X complained the Council left her without Personal Assistant support for around three months after her existing arrangements ended, failed to provide interim support while it reassessed her needs, and did not keep her properly informed. There is fault in the Council’s actions. This caused avoidable distress, uncertainty, loss of support, and reliance on informal care to meet her daily needs. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and service improvements to remedy the injustice caused. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (25 010 224) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to implement her daughter’s, Miss Y’s, care assessment and provide her with a suitable commissioned placement. She also complained the Council based its decisions on unfounded allegations that Miss Y was a threat to others. We find the Council was at fault for its delays in securing a suitable placement for Miss Y. This caused distress and upset. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to reflect the injustice caused. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (25 015 506) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to allow an application for a Disabled Facilities Grant for a loft conversion. It was reasonable for Miss X to ask for a review of the Panel’s decision and this has been subsequently granted. London Borough of Redbridge (25 016 998) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Care Provider and Council allegedly not involving Mr X in matters relating to his adult son’s care. The law prevents us from investigating matters that are before the courts. Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (25 017 141) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial assessment for adult social care costs. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision. Kent County Council (25 017 307) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delays in Care Needs Assessments. This is because part of the complaint is late and there is no good reason to investigate now. Further investigation of the remaining complaints would not lead to a different outcome. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (25 017 666) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the assessment of Mr X’s mental capacity when resident in a care home. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed Mr X’s capacity to justify investigation by us. Sheffield City Council (25 018 885) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about The Council’s sourcing of respite care for Ms X’s mother Ms Y. Of the matters complained of to the Council, investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s attempts to find respite care in January 2025. It would also be unlikely to recommend further remedy beyond the apology already offered for Council staff having attempted a home visit against Ms X’s expressed wishes. Cornwall Council (25 018 987) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint, made on behalf of Mrs X about the Council’s charging for her transport costs to attend a day centre. There is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant us investigating. Cheshire East Council (25 020 481) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the conduct of social workers during a home visit. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our involvement and his concerns are better placed with Social Work England. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (25 022 740) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council failing to provide him with records and the Council’s records containing false and inaccurate information. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to take his complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office. East Sussex County Council (25 011 698) Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly told his mother-in-law that she would not need to pay for her care then later asked her to make a significant contribution. We have ended our investigation because the Council has taken action that appropriately remedies any injustice. Cheshire East Council (25 016 739) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s Approved Mental Health Professional allegedly misleading Mr X when sectioning his partner under the Mental Health Act. Any injustice we would likely find if we investigated the matter is not significant enough to justify our involvement. East Sussex County Council (25 021 124) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council refused an application for a blue badge. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Cheshire East Council (25 030 728) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council caused the loss of Mr X’s belongings after he was evicted. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. London Borough of Waltham Forest (24 022 506) Summary: The Council was not at fault for deciding not to carry out a new assessment of Mr X’s care and support needs. It was entitled to decide Mr X’s needs had not changed since its last assessment and refer him to the NHS for further support. Westminster City Council (24 022 899) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failure in adult social care support at home. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome he wants and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. London Borough of Waltham Forest (25 011 089) Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council dealt with her care and support needs and that it placed her in unsuitable accommodation over a significant period. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Miss X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused. Plymouth City Council (25 015 930) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his supported living accommodation. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 015 993) Summary: Mrs A complained about the care provided to her mother, Mrs B, before her death at Woodlands Care Centre. We will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely we can add anything more to the investigation already carried out by the organisation. Woodlands Care Centre (RCH Care Homes) (25 015 993a) Summary: Mrs A complained about the care provided to her mother, Mrs B, before her death at Woodlands Care Centre. We will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely we can add anything more to the investigation already carried out by the organisation. Cornwall Council (25 023 035) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council denied his opportunity to live independently as it is linked to matters decided by the courts. The law prevents us from investigating such matters. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 003 558) Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Council that has caused significant injustice. Oakland Primecare Limited (25 007 073) Summary: We have ended this investigation about the care provided to Mr F at a Care Home. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and we could not add to any previous investigations carried out. London Borough of Wandsworth (25 008 645) Summary: Miss Y complained the Council delayed progressing her daughter’s care and support, failed to implement adequate provision, and did not provide her with appropriate carer support. We find fault in the delay in completing the assessment and progressing matters, but we do not find fault in the Council’s inability to provide services or respite where her daughter declined support. The delay caused frustration and uncertainty to Miss Y, but did not result in a loss of care provision to Miss X. The Council’s apologies and allocation of a new social worker provide a proportionate remedy for the injustice identified. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 014 684) Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council’s lack of adult social care involvement for his adult child between 2023 and 2024. Mr X could have complained to us sooner. In any event, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Surrey County Council (25 016 485) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charging for adult social care fees. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. London Borough of Harrow (25 019 638) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council failing to carry out a care and support needs assessment for his adult daughter, Ms Y and it failing to investigate safeguarding concerns. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by 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