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 Redbridge (24 020 146) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his late father, Mr Y’s, care. We found fault because the Council failed to communicate in an accurate or timely manner. We have also found it failed to act and respond to complaints in a timely manner. This caused Mr X avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, make symbolic payments to him and review the failings in this case. South Gloucestershire Council (25 004 343) Summary: Ms W complained on behalf of her sister Miss X about poor care from a Care Provider arranged by the Council because it did not meet her complex needs, put her at risk, and did not provide appropriate meals. We find the Council at fault for poor standards of care it commissioned from a Care Provider which caused significant distress to Miss X and Ms W. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice. Blackpool Borough Council (25 006 179) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the care and support provided by the Council. This is because parts of the complaint are late, and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (25 006 816) Summary: Mr X complained about how much the Council required Mrs B to contribute to the cost of her care. We find the Council failed to follow its own policy by not offering a review and appeal of its decision and by not properly considering whether to exercise discretion. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, review its decision and make service improvements. Peterborough City Council (25 011 596) Summary: There was fault in the way the Council considered the complainant’s application to renew his Blue Badge. It failed to send him a copy of its initial decision letter, for which it has agreed to apologise, and then completed an assessment, but did not take proper account of his condition and the reason for his application. The means the outcome of the assessment is unsafe, and for this reason the Council has now agreed to carry out a reassessment. There is also evidence council officers do not properly understand an aspect of the Blue Badge eligibility criteria, and the Council will circulate guidance to them about this. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (25 011 990) Summary: We found the Council made its decision that Mrs Y deprived herself of assets in line with relevant law and guidance without fault. Hertfordshire County Council (25 018 463) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial assessments carried out in 2018. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion and investigate now. Leeds City Council (25 018 777) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council caused confusion about his father’s care costs. This is because we have upheld the complaint as the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by making a recognition payment to Mr X. Durham County Council (25 019 569) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about social care charging as the injustice arising from any Council fault is not sufficient to warrant our further involvement. Peterborough City Council (25 022 146) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s Blue Badge application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault, in the Council’s decision, to justify investigating. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (25 007 025) Summary: Mr F complained on behalf of his late mother, Mrs B, about the quality of care she received in a Council arranged care home and that the Council had wrongly charged her for her care. We found no fault in the care provided or the charging. There was some fault in communications with Mr F and in a direct debit payment. The Council has already apologised for this which is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused. London Borough of Bromley (25 013 100) Summary: There was no fault because Mrs X received information about charging for social care and there is no evidence she was told by the Council that Mr X would get free care for six weeks. The records indicate the Council assessed Mr X was needing long-term care and support which is chargeable from day one. So the Council was not at fault in charging him. Suffolk County Council (25 013 691) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has wrongly charged her for care services she has not used. We have ended our investigation into Mrs X’s complaint because it is late, and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate it. Buckinghamshire Council (25 017 100) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about use of direct payments for a carer who is meeting adult social care needs. There was some delay by the Council to arrange a review, but it did not cause a significant injustice. The review has not taken place, but that is the choice of the complainant. We are satisfied with the actions the Council took in response to the complaint. The parties now need to agree the review to decide the support plan. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (25 017 974) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how a care provider and the Council considered Miss X’s safeguarding disclosures or provided her with support to move to different accommodation. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our involvement. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (25 018 762) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the poor care the Council accepted it provided to Miss X’s late father Mr Y in 2023 and 2024. We could not add significantly to the Council’s own findings, or deliver the outcome Miss X is seeking in determining whether there was negligence, and if compensation should be paid. HC-One No.2 Limited (25 019 021) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Care Home providing poor care to her late father, Mr Y. This is because we could not add to the Care Provider’s investigation and a further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. It accepted fault and offered a remedy which was appropriate. Kent County Council (25 019 357) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs B’s complaint about a debt for care charges the Council says she owes. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. London Borough of Lewisham (25 023 053) 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. Central Bedfordshire Council (25 024 966) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X’s Blue Badge application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault, in the Council’s decision, to justify investigating. Warrington Council (24 017 488) Summary: We upheld a complaint made by Mr B about a form used by the Alternative Futures Group when a user of its services is at end of life. We found the form caused unnecessary confusion. The Provider did not offer enough advice to staff on how to complete it, including how it recorded efforts to meet someone’s last wishes. Nor did it ask if the person completing the form if they wanted their wishes shared before death. We considered these faults caused Mr B some unnecessary distress when he learnt his brother had completed such a form before he died. However, we did not agree the form created an entitlement for Mr B to benefit from his brother’s estate. At the end of this statement, we ask the Alternative Futures Group to apologise, make a symbolic payment to Mr B and make service improvements to prevent a repeat. NHS Cheshire and Merseyside ICB (24 017 488a) Summary: We upheld a complaint made by Mr B about a form used by the Alternative Futures Group when a user of its services is at end of life. We found the form caused unnecessary confusion. The Provider did not offer enough advice to staff on how to complete it, including how it recorded efforts to meet someone’s last wishes. Nor did it ask if the person completing the form if they wanted their wishes shared before death. We considered these faults caused Mr B some unnecessary distress when he learnt his brother had completed such a form before he died. However, we did not agree the form created an entitlement for Mr B to benefit from his brother’s estate. At the end of this statement, we ask the Alternative Futures Group to apologise, make a symbolic payment to Mr B and make service improvements to prevent a repeat. Alternative Futures Group (24 017 488b) Summary: We upheld a complaint made by Mr B about a form used by the Alternative Futures Group when a user of its services is at end of life. We found the form caused unnecessary confusion. The Provider did not offer enough advice to staff on how to complete it, including how it recorded efforts to meet someone’s last wishes. Nor did it ask if the person completing the form if they wanted their wishes shared before death. We considered these faults caused Mr B some unnecessary distress when he learnt his brother had completed such a form before he died. However, we did not agree the form created an entitlement for Mr B to benefit from his brother’s estate. At the end of this statement, we ask the Alternative Futures Group to apologise, make a symbolic payment to Mr B and make service improvements to prevent a repeat. Essex County Council (25 002 047) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failing to respond to e-mail contact. We are satisfied with the Council’s actions to acknowledge fault and apologise for the impact. Redditch Borough Council (25 006 169) Summary: The Council has acknowledged that it should have handled repairs to Mr B’s extra care housing better and given more consideration to the impact on him. It should have updated details of the family members to contact with concerns about Mr B, and explained why his laundry costs had increased. The Council has reviewed how it approaches these situations, and offered to make a symbolic payment to Mr B in recognition of the impact on him. This is a reasonable way to settle this complaint. There was no fault when it changed the timing of his morning care call. C O O C I Associates LLP (25 006 529) Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Provider dealt with him and the care of a family member, Mr Y. We found no fault in the actions of the Provider. Shropshire Council (25 011 071) Summary: There was fault by the Council which failed to carry out a timely review of the late Mrs X’s care and support. This caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty about the outcome. The Council will apologise for causing this uncertainty. London Borough of Lambeth (25 017 664) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr Y’s care charges as we are unlikely to achieve meaningful outcomes on matters that arose years ago and as any injustice is not significant enough to justify an investigation of remaining matters. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (25 018 498) Summary: We will not investigate matters relating to Miss X’s mother which occurred in 2017 and 2018. Nor will we investigate another complaint about her mother’s Adult Social Care assessment which the Council carried out in 2023. We have already considered most of these complaints. The other complaints are late. We will also not investigate Miss X’s complaints about her personal data. We have already informed her the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to deal with these. Cornwall Council (25 018 973) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision about direct payments for Mr X. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason to look at it now. Cornwall Council (25 019 400) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s financial assessment and charges for his late relative, Mr Y’s care. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Aria Healthcare Group LTD (25 019 946) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Care Home failing to manage his wife’s risk of falls. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome he wants. There is another body better placed to consider his complaint. London Borough of Hounslow (25 022 122) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X’s Blue Badge application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault, in the Council’s decision, to justify investigating. Welford Healthcare MC Ltd (25 009 470) Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of his wife, Mrs Y, that Oldbury Grange Nursing Home failed to administer four of five prescribed medications, between 12 and 16 May 2025. Mr X also says the provider failed to administer a prescribed supplement between 4 and 5 June 2025. Mr X says this has caused Mrs Y to miss medication and has caused the family distress. We have found fault in the care providers actions for failing to ensure medication was available and for failing to advise Mr X when it was not. The care provider has agreed to complete a service improvement. Sheffield City Council (25 018 528) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council's refusal to renew her disabled person’s travel pass. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (25 018 794) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the way the Council handled its enquiries about her direct payments. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason to investigate it now. Devon County Council (25 019 436) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council referring concerns to the Office of the Public Guardian. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. London Borough of Barnet (25 022 622) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s mobility assessment and its handling of Mrs X’s Blue Badge application and appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault, in how the Council considered the matter, to justify investigating. In addition, further investigation by us is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. Leeds City Council (25 023 699) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s Blue Badge application because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify an investigation. Sheffield City Council (25 024 008) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s disabled person’s bus pass application because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to justify an investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome he wants. Surrey County Council (25 006 353) Summary: Mr D complains about the care provided to his grandmother, Ms E, before her death. He complains the organisations who provided her care failed to keep her safe or recognise how vulnerable she was. I find no fault with the actions of the organisations and do not uphold the complaint. London Borough of Havering (25 009 308) Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s involvement in the cleaning of his property following an admission to hospital. We find no fault in the Council’s actions, which were in line with its duties. It took appropriate steps to safeguard and support him. WT UK Opco 4 (25 014 447) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider’s handling of an allegation of assault because we could not add to its previous investigation. Wiltshire Council (25 017 717) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not fund Mr X’s residential care while there was a dispute with another Council as to which was responsible for the fees. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (25 018 394) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the standard of care provided at the Care Provider’s care home. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons why the complaint was not brought to us sooner. London Borough of Newham (25 019 874) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s Blue Badge application and appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault, in how the Council considered the matter, to justify investigating. In addition, further investigation by us is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. London Borough of Ealing (25 023 952) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s Blue Badge application because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to justify an investigation. Dorset Council (25 005 600) Summary: Mr C complains the Council and Trust have failed to provide him with information about safeguarding allegations made against him. We will not investigate this complaint as there is not enough evidence of fault. 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