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. Hampshire County Council (25 008 750) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s management and oversight of her care funded through direct payments. We are unlikely to add to the Council’s investigation. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (25 017 472) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mrs Y’s finances. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. London Borough of Hounslow (25 017 546) Summary: The Council was at fault in how it responded to Miss X’s homelessness. It delayed acting until Miss X was evicted and failed to consider what it should to do to protect her belongings. The faults caused Miss X avoidable upset, distress and uncertainty. To remedy Miss X’s injustice, the Council should apologise and make a symbolic payment. It should also take action to prevent similar fault in future. The Council was not at fault in how it decided what care and support Miss X needed. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (25 017 806) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in social care provision. Part of the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to consider them now. We cannot investigate the other complaints. Firstly, some concerns relate to the Council’s actions during tribunal proceedings and we are prevent from investigating. The Council has accepted fault for the remaining complaints and provided suitable remedy. We are therefore unlikely to achieve more. Cornwall Council (25 020 865) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care fees as we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X seeks which is for the fees to be written off. We will not investigate how the Council dealt with Mrs X’s complaint separately as in isolation I do not consider any injustice arising from this is sufficient to justify our further involvement. Leicester City Council (25 023 435) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with Ms B’s direct payments. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 023 516) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the care provided to her husband, Mr X, by Cambridgeshire County Council and Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. This is because we consider it unlikely an investigation would find fault with the care these organisations provided to Mr X. London Borough of Lambeth (25 000 273) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council completed a financial assessment to calculate how much Miss B should pay towards her care costs. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Kent County Council (25 011 191) Summary: Mr F complained about the care and support the Council put in place for his grandson, Mr D and a failure to apply for a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisation. The Council failed to renew the DoLS which caused uncertainty to Mr D. We found no fault in the way the Council determined Mr D’s care and support. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Mr D £500 to remedy the injustice caused. City of Doncaster Council (25 012 105) Summary: Ms X complained her son received a poor standard of care at his supported living provider and staff were untruthful with her on several occasions. The care provider has now addressed these issues with its staff. We will not investigate this complaint, as further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Devon County Council (25 018 318) Summary: We upheld Ms X’s complaint about Mr Y’s direct payments. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. London Borough of Islington (25 019 236) Summary: We will not investigate these complaints relating to assessments of a person’s entitlement to s117 funding. Some of the issues were considered by a previous investigation. The Council and the ICB will undertake a new review which will provide a suitable remedy to other issues. And, it is unlikely an investigation would find a significant outstanding injustice in relation to the remaining issues. London Borough of Camden (24 019 325) Summary: Miss Y complained on behalf of Miss X that the Council delayed completing a Housing and Health Needs Assessment and failed to address all aspects of her complaint. We do not find fault in the Council’s assessment of Miss X’s housing needs. However, we do find fault in the Council’s complaint handling, specifically a significant delay in issuing its stage two response, which caused Miss Y uncertainty and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss Y. Liverpool City Council (25 021 458) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about Mrs Y’s care and support. This is because she has not provided consent from Mrs Y to show she is a suitable representative to complain on her behalf. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (25 002 217) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to Miss X’s referral. This is because part of the complaint is late, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Suffolk County Council (25 004 119) Summary: Mr D complained the Council failed to properly assess his care and support needs. We found fault as the care and support plan is unclear about how it will meet Mr D’s needs. The Council has agreed to finalise a new care and support plan which clearly sets out how many hours of support is needed for health appointments and whether or not Mr D requires transport to meet his eligible needs. Medway Council (25 004 902) Summary: Mx Y complains about the Council’s response to a safeguarding referral it received about abuse by a care worker. We find the Council ended its safeguarding involvement prematurely. Although the Council later resumed its investigation, the earlier decision to close the enquiry caused avoidable distress. Mx Y also complains the care provider failed to deliver the agreed level of care to meet their assessed needs. We find fault because the provider did not consistently deliver the care hours the Council assessed as necessary. The Council will complete the remedial actions listed at the end of this statement. Staffordshire County Council (25 008 115) Summary: Miss Y complained on behalf of Mr X that the care provider incorrectly billed the Council for three years for Mr X’s care, which caused a backdated outstanding balance. We find the Council at fault for poor oversight and management of its commissioned care provider. This caused significant distress and worry for the family. The Council will apologise and arranges a reasonable and affordable payment plan. Lancashire County Council (25 008 766) Summary: We have discontinued the investigation as it is not clear what the complaint is and Mr B could not represent Ms B in the complaint. Hertfordshire County Council (25 010 449) Summary: On behalf of Mr Y, Mr X complained the Council failed to provide a suitable direct payment and asked unnecessary questions when completing a financial assessment. We find the Council at fault for failing to provide relevant information relating to Mr Y’s care charges. This has caused Mr Y and Mr X distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and improve its information about live-in care charges. Pilgrims’ Friend Society (25 013 975) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Care Provider incorrectly charging her mother, Mrs Y. This is because there is not enough injustice to warrant an investigation and we would not be able to add to the Care Provider’s investigation. Warrington Council (25 015 932) Summary: We will not investigate Mr G’s complaint that the Council failed to complete an NHS Continuing Healthcare Checklist for his late father. We are unlikely to find fault by the Council on the key issues, and we are unlikely to be able to achieve the outcome Mr G wants. London Borough of Camden (25 020 601) London Borough of Camden (25 020 601) Cheshire East Council (25 021 155) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint about the Council’s decision that Mrs X deprived herself of assets to reduce care costs, because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision. Kent County Council (25 025 662) 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 process to justify an investigation. Central Bedfordshire Council (25 028 936) 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. London Borough of Bexley (25 008 707) Summary: We found fault with Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust’s handling of Mr C’s discharge from hospital in September 2023. This fault caused Mr C’s daughter, Mrs B, confusion and distress. The Trust will apologise to Mrs B and pay her a financial remedy. It will also take action to prevent similar problems occurring in future. We found no fault with the actions of London Borough of Bexley in the discharge process. London Borough of Southwark (25 018 323) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the renewal of a Blue Badge because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation. Leicester City Council (25 020 016) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a concessionary travel pass for disabled people. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. Hertfordshire County Council (25 020 750) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding. The person using the service has died so has no injustice for us to now consider and remedy. The person making the complaint does not have a significant enough injustice to justify our involvement. Suffolk County Council (25 022 403) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse Mr X’s Blue Badge application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement. Sheffield City Council (25 022 955) 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. Sheffield City Council (25 023 210) 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. Stow Healthcare Group Limited (25 027 995) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Care Home losing her late mother’s ring. This is because we would not be able to add to the previous investigation and there is another body better placed to consider her complaint. Hampshire County Council (25 028 646) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s Disabled Facilities Grant application. There is not enough evidence of fault, in how the Council considered the matter, to justify an investigation. London Borough of Lewisham (25 029 853) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s Care Home poor communication because we could not add to the previous investigation. We will also not investigate the Care Home’s actions in relation to an allegation because there is insufficient 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 Granicus Communications Cloud on behalf of: The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman ·5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT