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. Shropshire Council (25 009 294) Summary: Miss X complains the Council has not dealt properly with occupational therapy assessments and adaptions to her property, causing avoidable distress. The Council is not at fault. Worcestershire County Council (25 016 618) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged discriminatory comments made by a carer to Miss X. We could not add to the investigation the Care Provider carried out, nor could we achieve anything different or more meaningful by investigating the matter further. It is not proportionate to investigate complaint-handling in isolation when we are not investigating the substantive matter. London Borough of Croydon (25 016 779) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in invoicing Mr Y for his care. The Council has agreed to remedy Mr Y’s and Miss X’s injustice at an early stage by apologising and issuing the invoice to the correct address. It is therefore not proportionate for us to investigate the complaint. Manchester City Council (25 019 294) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging Mr X a contribution toward the cost of his care. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable which would justify an investigation. Warwickshire County Council (25 019 521) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s charging as there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (25 025 022) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X’s disagreement with the Council over adaptations to her home under the Disabled Facilities Grant scheme. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Coventry City Council (25 026 745) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that suitable temporary toilet facilities were not provided during Disabled Facilities Grant works. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Nottinghamshire County Council (26 000 855) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to placing her adult daughters in a care placement. This is because the law prevents us from investigating such matters and subsequently, we cannot achieve the outcome she wants. Devon County Council (25 000 402) Summary: Mrs A complains about the Council. Her complaints relate to the care of her parents at multiple care homes between 2021 and 2024. We will not investigate this complaint because it is late. London Borough of Sutton (25 008 729) Summary: There was fault by the Care Home in its care of Mr X, a failure in complaint handling and a delay in completing safeguarding processes. This caused avoidable distress. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment. The Council will also complete the systematic review of the Care Home agreed as an outcome to the safeguarding enquiry. Bath and North East Somerset Council (25 008 965) Summary: Mr X complained the Council started a safeguarding enquiry without completing a formal mental capacity assessment for his mother, Mrs Y. He also says the Council failed to consult with him and his brother during the process. We do not find the Council was at fault. Cheshire East Council (25 017 004) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that he is not eligible for adult social care and support. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. West Northamptonshire Council (25 018 469) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to safeguard her relative, Mr Y. Some of the complaint is late and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. It is appropriate for the Council to address any new matters through its complaints procedure. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 019 138) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on Adult Social Care charges because there is not enough evidence of fault. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (25 019 966) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council payments for Mr X’s uncle’s care between 2020 and 2022. As executor, Mr X was aware of this matter at least three years before approaching us, and there is no good reason for us to investigate this matter now. It would also be reasonable for Mr X to pursue his legal claim against the Council. Oxfordshire County Council (25 020 049) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions relating to an interim charging order it obtained from the courts. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (25 027 233) 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. Luton Borough Council (25 027 464) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms X’s Blue Badge application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault, in the Council’s decision, to justify investigating. London Borough of Ealing (25 027 529) 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 to justify an investigation. Lancashire County Council (25 006 947) Summary: The Council and its commissioned Care Home were not at fault in their assessments of Mrs X’s needs, or in the planning of her care. The Care Home was at fault in its care of Mrs X’s continence and toileting needs in October 2024, which caused Mr X distress and impacted Mrs X’s dignity. It was also at fault in its record keeping at that time, which caused Mr X uncertainty. The Council was not at fault in its enquiries into two safeguarding incidents, but failed to share a detailed outcome with Mr X, which caused him uncertainty. The Council should agree to apologise to Mr X for the distress and uncertainty caused to him by the faults. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (25 019 220) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Ms X’s financial assessment. The Council has upheld the complaint and agreed to remedy Ms X’s injustice by apologising and waiving care fees incurred during its delay. Further investigation by us would therefore not be proportionate. London Borough of Redbridge (25 021 785) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council installed an alarm unit in his late mother, Mrs Y’s, house and that it took payment from his account when he had cancelled the service. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons why he did not complain to us sooner. Eastbourne Borough Council (25 001 411) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to complete work agreed under a Disabled Facilities Grant. She says that she has been left without a bathroom, which has caused considerable distress. She confirms the Council has agreed to replace the bathroom however has yet to do so. We found the Council at fault. There was a delay in fixing the bathroom. The Council will take action to resolve the bathroom issue, apologise and make a payment to Miss X to recognise the injustice caused. Nottinghamshire County Council (25 007 681) Summary: Mr X complained the Council gave him wrong information about payments for his mother, Mrs Y’s, homecare. The Council discussed direct payments and personal contributions with Mr X and Mrs Y. Mr X also signed a form that said he agreed he was responsible for paying top-up fees and he would tell the Council about changes in circumstances. Mr X did not tell the Council he was changing to a more expensive care package with a new provider. The Council was not at fault. EQ Care Group Limited (25 010 483) Summary: We have ended our investigation and uphold Ms X’s complaint about the standard of care her mother received at a care home. During the investigation the Care Provider offered a suitable remedy for any injustice caused. Northumberland County Council (25 011 099) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council held money belonging to her late husband without informing her. We find the Council at fault for failing to clearly inform Mrs X, as executor, about the funds it held and for not following the correct order of priority by failing to consider funeral expenses first. However, after Mrs X provided evidence of the funeral costs, the Council reimbursed these in full. We are therefore satisfied there is no remaining injustice. The Council has agreed to review and update its procedures for managing finances where it acts as deputy. Swindon Borough Council (25 012 033) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council decided the adult was not at risk. The adult has since died and no longer needs safeguarding, so there would be no worthwhile outcome to achieve from an investigation. The complainant’s disappointment at how the Council handled the matter would not be a significant enough injustice to justify our further involvement. Norfolk County Council (25 012 603) Summary: There was no fault backdating Mr Y’s care contribution to the date the benefit was awarded because the Council told Mr Y to inform it when he was awarded Personal Independence payment, a welfare benefit. There was no fault by the Council in failing to tell Mr Y it was reassessing his contribution. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (25 017 987) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to seek a financial appointee for her son because there is not enough evidence of fault. And we will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council has blocked her access to her son because this is premature. Sheffield City Council (25 018 993) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s funding decisions for her son Mr X’s care provision and Disability-Related Expenses (DREs). There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making processes to warrant us investigating and we cannot achieve the outcomes she seeks. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (25 020 658) Summary: We will not investigate how the Council dealt with a complaint about care charges as it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (25 021 372) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her Blue Badge application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement. Sheffield City Council (25 005 511) Summary: Mr X complained the Council has failed to properly investigate or rectify errors and discrepancies in Miss Y’s direct payments. He says that as a result of the Council’s failings and errors there is now a negative balance on Miss Y’s direct payment account and outstanding invoices which cannot be paid. We found the failings and errors in the Council’s oversight and management of Miss Y’s care plan and direct payments are fault. This fault has caused Mr X an injustice. 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