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. Sheffield City Council (24 018 754) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delivered poor care to her late father, Mr Y. We found the Council was at fault in how it managed the provision of Mr Y’s mattress and his repositioning, and in its record keeping of medication administration. This caused Mrs X frustration and avoidable uncertainty. The Council will apologise to Mrs X and make a symbolic payment to recognise the distress caused. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 010 516) Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s failure to renew her Blue Badge, despite there being no change in her circumstances. We found the Council to be at fault because it was unable to demonstrate it carried out a proper review of Ms X’s mobility or hidden disability. This left Ms X uncertain as to whether her application was properly considered. To remedy this injustice, the Council agreed to apologise and reconsider her application. It will also take action to improve its service. Lincolnshire County Council (25 014 744) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards assessment carried out with her father shortly before he died. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. London Borough of Camden (25 015 874) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council managed her father’s discharge from hospital. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (25 017 850) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to provide reconditioned beds to his children because there is insufficient evidence of fault with how the Council made its decision. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s poor communication because we would not be able to add to the Council's investigation. Portsmouth City Council (25 020 313) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about an occupational therapy assessment, inaccurate Council records and its handling of her complaint. It is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider a complaint about accuracy of records. North Somerset Council (25 021 204) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how long the Council took to review a blue badge eligibility decision. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. London Borough of Hounslow (25 027 111) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr 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. Cambridgeshire County Council (24 019 241) Summary: We find that the Council delayed completing a care needs assessment for B, Mr X’s adult son, and then delayed providing sufficient funding to meet his increased needs. There were also failings in the way the Council communicated with Mr X. These failings caused Mr X distress, uncertainty and placed avoidable strain on Mr X providing the additional care B needed. It is also likely that B did not receive all the support he needed. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment, and make service improvements. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (25 001 396) Summary: There was fault by the Council. It failed to inform Ms X about safeguarding concerns against her, failed to keep a record of decision-making, failed to liaise with another agency, failed to tell her it had ended a safeguarding enquiry and delayed responding to her complaint. This caused her avoidable distress and time and trouble. The Council will issue a symbolic payment and a written reminder to relevant council staff. Devon County Council (25 007 524) Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her mother, Mrs Y, about delays in the Council’s financial assessment of her residential care charges. Mrs X also complained the Council did not respond to her emails and did not keep her informed about how it assessed Mrs Y’s capital. Mrs X says the Council’s actions caused significant avoidable distress and uncertainty. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to provide an apology and a financial remedy and arrange an appointment to discuss payment of the care charges. London Borough of Enfield (25 008 604) Summary: Mr B complained about the way the Council handled an incident involving his son, Mr C, during transport to college and the subsequent safeguarding investigation. We found the Council’s initial decision-making process was flawed and it delayed excessively on several occasions causing distress to Mr B and Mr C. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and Mr C, make a symbolic payment, provide services to him and improve its procedures for the future. London Borough of Sutton (25 011 712) Summary: The Council acted in line with government guidance when it included Mrs Y’s property in her financial assessment and so it was not at fault. As there was a dispute about the value of Mrs Y’s share in the property, the Council should have got an independent valuation because guidance required it to. The failure to obtain an independent valuation was fault which caused uncertainty about the outcome of the Council’s financial assessment. The Council will apologise, arrange an independent valuation by the District Valuer Service and review the financial assessment once the valuation is available. Royal Borough of Greenwich (25 015 286) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about her care by Royal Borough of Greenwich and Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust. The Council and Trust have accepted errors and taken steps to put things right. Further investigation by the Ombudsmen is unlikely to achieve more. Milton Keynes Council (25 017 859) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s eligibility decision relating to a Blue Badge application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Cornwall Council (25 019 766) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s inclusion of notional capital in a financial assessment. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Nottinghamshire County Council (25 026 652) Summary: Ms C complains about her father’s discharge from hospital into a care home. Ms C complains the discharge occurred without her knowledge, provided inadequate care, and was too far away. We will not investigate this complaint as the issues date back to 2023 and are too long ago to properly investigate. London Borough of Newham (25 011 878) Summary: The Council’s basis for refusing Mr X’s application for a freedom pass is flawed. It cited Mr X’s failure to provide requested medical information as the reason for its refusal. The evidence shows Mr X did in fact provide the information requested. HC-One Limited (25 012 491) Summary: Mr X complained about the care provided to his late mother, Mrs Y, at one of the Care Provider’s care homes. The Care Provider was at fault for leaving Mrs Y with food while she was lying down, failing to check her commode and for not telling her family about some incidents. This caused Mr X distress and uncertainty over whether she was being properly supported. The Provider has already acted to remedy the injustice. The Provider was not at fault for the way it responded to Mrs Y’s resistance to care, the number of falls Mrs Y had or for the delay in diagnosing her fractured wrist. Gloucestershire County Council (25 012 781) Summary: There has been fault by the Council. It did not clearly communicate, in writing, the financial contribution that Mr D should make when his property value was disregarded for the first 12 weeks he was in residential care. An apology and review of procedures remedies the injustice, as the charges made by the Council were correct. London Borough of Redbridge (25 018 382) Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed in dealing with his enquiry about a deferred payment agreement, causing significant distress. We have upheld this complaint because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy to Mr X in recognition of the injustice caused. Salford City Council (25 019 747) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s safeguarding concern because there is not enough evidence of fault. Cherry Lodge Rest Home Ltd (25 020 062) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Home’s refusal to refund fees. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable if we were to investigate. Thurrock Council (25 020 883) Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about the Council delaying providing them with information and advice about care and support services following assessments and subsequently, delaying arranging care and support. This is because the injustice they experienced is not significant enough to warrant an investigation. Cherish UK Limited (25 027 094) Summary: Mrs C complained the Care Provider failed to provide support as agreed and in line with her mother’s (Mrs X) care and support plan, and how it handled and responded to her concerns. We found there was some fault by the Care Provider which caused Mrs C and Mrs F an injustice. The Care Provider agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment, and complete service improvement recommendations to remedy the injustice caused. Coventry City Council (25 005 064) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on Mrs Y’s care charges because there is not enough evidence of fault. Essex County Council (25 007 489) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council wrongly asked her daughter, Miss Y, to contribute to the costs of her care and support using her benefit money. The Council was at fault for not considering Mrs X’s claimed expenses and confirming the position to her at the earliest opportunity, and for not passing on information from its financial assessment team when Mrs X asked for a re-assessment. The Council agreed to apologise for the frustration and uncertainty this caused. However, there was no fault in the Council’s financial assessment. Staffordshire County Council (25 009 272) Summary: There was fault by the Council because it failed to consider Mrs X’s request for more expensive respite provision for fewer hours. This was not in the spirit of paragraph 4.46 of Care and Support Statutory Guidance and was fault causing avoidable distress and a loss of opportunity for Mrs X to have a break from her caring role. The Council will apologise and roll over any unused respite direct payment funding from 2025 into the current year. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (25 019 222) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council has failed to make adaptations to her property. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. West Northamptonshire Council (25 019 633) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to repair Mr X’s bathroom which was funded by Disabled Facilities Grants. Part of Mr X’s complaint is late. An investigation into the complaint which is in time would not achieve anything for Mr X. Manchester City Council (25 019 820) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council communicated about and dealt with Mr A’s care costs. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. South Gloucestershire Council (25 022 340) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about backdated care fees and payment reminders from the Council following the cancellation of the bill as there is insufficient remaining injustice arising from this to justify our further involvement. Streetscene Addiction Recovery (25 022 545) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Provider’s handling of, and response to, his safeguarding disclosures and subject access request. The law prevents us from considering the complaint because it is not made about actions that involve, or are connected to, the provision of adult social care. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (25 026 104) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage caused to Mr X’s heating system after works carried out by a contractor. This is because it concerns a claim about damage to property and this is a civil matter for which it is reasonable for him to seek a remedy in the courts. London Borough of Ealing (25 026 742) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr 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. London Borough of Barnet (25 028 838) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to finding a placement for her mother and how it managed safeguarding concerns. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Leicester City Council (25 030 450) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to remove her as a paid personal carer and the quality of care being delivered by a care provider to her family member. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, we could not achieve the outcome she wants and we do not consider her as a suitable representative. Kent County Council (25 008 092) Summary: There was fault by the Council as it delayed completing social care assessments, care and support plans and in determining the dates Mrs X’s parents’ savings fell to the threshold for council funding for social care and support. This caused avoidable distress and confusion. The Council has made retrospective payments which is a partial remedy. It will also take the following action: issue a written apology, make a symbolic payment to Mrs X, review her parents’ financial assessments and review case allocation, assessment and care planning procedures. London Borough of Harrow (25 010 315) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s late complaints about poor quality of care in a care home and lack of response to an appeal of his aunt’s financial assessment. There is not a good reason for the delay in Mr X complaining to us. We will also not investigate his complaint the Council delayed pursuing his aunt for unpaid care charges, because any fault in this respect did not cause an injustice. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to pursue the debt in 2025. The Information Commissioner is best placed to deal with complaints about access to information. Kent County Council (25 011 660) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to tell him it had decided to charge him for care before he moved into supported living. We find no fault in how the Council communicated the care charges to Mr X. Birmingham City Council (25 017 513) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in completing a financial assessment for Mr Y. This is because the Council has remedied the matter to the Ombudsman’s satisfaction. London Borough of Islington (25 019 537) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about what happened when Mr X asked the Council for urgent assistance with his relative’s dementia crisis. This is because there is no evidence of a significant injustice. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (25 025 310) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not including him in his father’s care. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. London Borough of Sutton (25 026 714) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X’s Blue Badge application because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to justify an investigation. Central Bedfordshire Council (25 027 167) 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. Central Bedfordshire Council (25 009 499) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about her daughter, Ms Y’s, care by Central Bedfordshire Council and East London NHS Foundation Trust. We will not consider Mrs X’s complaint about Ms Y’s mental capacity assessment as this is contrary to Ms Y’s wishes. The Council and the Trust have accepted errors with Ms Y’s care and have put improvements in place. Further investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve more. 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