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. Macc Care (Stafford) Limited (25 006 402) Summary: We have not found fault in the way the care home provided personal care to Ms C. However, there were two incidents witnessed by Ms C’s family and friends which were not properly recorded and, in one of the incidents, care was not provided in line with the care plan. Derbyshire County Council (25 007 760) Summary: The Council was not at fault in the way it responded to concerns about Mr X’s actions. There were concerns raised about his actions in respect of his grandmother’s (Mrs B’s) finances, health and accommodation which the Council had a duty to consider even though Mr X holds power of attorney for Mrs B. Suffolk County Council (25 009 169) Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council reduced her support from 35 to 14 hours per week. She also complained about the way the Council’s staff treated her during the review meeting. We found fault in the way the Council carried out a review of Miss X’s care and support plan and the way it had responded to her complaint. The Council’s fault caused injustice to Miss X as for many months she did not have adequate support and had to rely on her adult son. The Council has already reviewed its decision on Miss X’s support and reinstated her previous hours. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to recognise Miss X’s injustice and remind its staff of what they should include in the review of care and support plans. London Borough of Merton (25 009 890) Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council dealt with the care and support of her son, Y, and her as a carer. The Council was at fault for delaying in completing a carers assessment and poorly responding to Ms X’s complaint. The Council should apologise and make a payment to Ms X to remedy the frustration and uncertainty caused. East Sussex County Council (25 021 238) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to accept Ms X’s son into its service for adults with severe learning disabilities. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. Kent County Council (25 022 106) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint, brought by Mr Y, about the Council seeking payment of a backdated care contribution. There is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant us investigating and we cannot achieve the complaint outcome sought. Birmingham City Council (25 028 283) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about inappropriate conduct of staff towards him at his supported living placement. This is because a further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s investigation. Cumberland Council (25 030 266) 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. Leicestershire County Council (25 000 878) Summary: Mr X complained the Council has failed to carry out a proper care assessment that captures his medical conditions. He also complained about inaccuracies in the Council’s financial assessment. We find the Council was at fault for its delay in dealing with a review of Mr X’s financial assessment. This has caused Mr X frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and complete a review of his financial assessment. City of Doncaster Council (25 015 117) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council handled its safeguarding investigations. This is because part of the complaint is late and there is insufficient injustice in relation to the remaining issues. Warwickshire County Council (25 021 421) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s charges for Mr X’s care. This is because there is not enough evidence the Council is at fault to justify an investigation. Worcestershire County Council (25 021 534) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council placed her daughter in residential care without her authorisation and then charged her too much for her care. There is not enough evidence of fault. Swindon Borough Council (25 021 865) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to include the value of Mrs X’s property in its assessment of her assets. Investigation would be unlikely to lead to a finding of fault in the way the Council reached its decision Bracknell Forest Council (25 028 222) 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. Cheshire East Council (25 029 394) 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 (25 030 021) 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 (25 030 203) 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. Central Bedfordshire Council (26 000 615) 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 Redbridge (26 002 780) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s Freedom Pass application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault, in the Council’s decision, to justify investigating. East Sussex County Council (25 021 420) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms X’s care fee contribution. This is because there is not enough evidence the Council is at fault to warrant an investigation. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (25 022 633) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his blue badge renewal. This is because the Council apologised for the frustration caused by the delay and further investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome. For the remainder, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation. Redwood Tower UK Opco 1 Limited (25 009 302) Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her late father, Mr Y about the care he received whilst at Beckenham Park Care Home. Mrs X said the care home failed to call a doctor despite requests to do so and allowed Mr Y’s physical condition to deteriorate significantly. We find the care home at fault, causing significant upset and distress. The care provider has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment in recognition of the injustice. Hertfordshire County Council (25 023 389) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care arrangements for and safeguarding of the complainant’s adult daughter. This is because the matters in it are the subject of court action or related closely enough to mean we could not investigate them separately. Sheffield City Council (25 024 141) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s commissioned Nursing Home and the poor care it provided to her late relative. This is because we could not add to the Council’s previous investigation and a further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Blackpool Borough Council (25 007 580) Summary: Ms X complained the Council reduced the direct payment support hours for her adult son, Mr Y, without any explanation. The Council was at fault for reviewing Mr Y’s care without the involvement of a specialist deafblind assessor. The Council was also at fault for not meeting Mr Y’s care needs between December 2024 and April 2025 and for telling Ms X wrong information about the number of support hours it had agreed for Mr Y. This caused Ms X distress and uncertainty but did not result in Mr Y missing out on care. The Council should apologise and make a payment to Ms X. RBL Field House Care Ltd (25 025 389) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a subject access request. This is because there is another body better placed to consider his concerns. Lancashire County Council (24 017 784) Summary: There was no fault in how the Council investigated Ms X’s safeguarding concerns related to her mother’s care in a nursing home. The Council’s delayed complaint response was fault. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to Ms X to recognise the avoidable frustration she was caused. Winchester City Council (25 000 678) Summary: We found the Council at fault for failings in its DFG procedure. These faults resulted in avoidable frustration and uncertainty for Mrs X, as well as the need for further work to meet identified needs. The Council has already taken steps to provide a remedy and improve its services. The Council has accepted our recommendations. Somerset Council (25 005 508) Summary: There was some delay on the part of the Council in allocating a social worker to Ms X in 2024. The Council has now reassessed Ms X’s needs and suggested community options which could meet her needs instead of a funded service. It will now also offer a payment in recognition of the delay in allocating a new social worker in 2024. Devon County Council (25 013 593) Summary: Mrs Y complains of procedural fault in the Council’s handling of her daughter’s Blue Badge application and appeal. The Council has since issued a Blue Badge. As the substantive outcome which Miss Y sought has now been achieved, and any remaining injustice is limited, it is not proportionate for the Ombudsman to continue an investigation. Cornwall Council (25 020 013) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a personal expenses allowance. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council came to its decision. Bristol City Council (25 020 042) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council pursuing Mr X for payment of his late mother’s care fees. This is because the Council intends to take the matter to court where a decision can be made. Cumberland Council (25 020 131) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council restricting her from seeing her wife and the Council withholding information. This is because we could not achieve a worthwhile outcome. Kent County Council (25 020 402) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about restrictions placed upon Mr X’s visits to Ms Y in a care home after he raised concerns about her care. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Only the Court of Protection can make a decision where there is disagreement about a person’s best interests. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (25 021 549) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s communication and support it provided to her while she was in hospital. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Blackpool Borough Council (25 022 005) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his concerns about a relative’s care and finances. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (25 022 010) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council’s officer spoke to Mr X during telephone call in 2024. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate now. Surrey County Council (25 026 269) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms 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 Newham (25 027 553) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council closing a daycare centre. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Coventry City Council (25 028 124) 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. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (26 002 028) 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. London Borough of Brent (25 018 658) Summary: We will not investigate Mr Z’s complaint about how the Council handled charges for Miss X’s care since 2023. Some parts of this complaint are late and there appears no good reason why they could not have been brought to us sooner. For the remaining issues, further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (25 020 862) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the service provided by an advocacy organisation funded by the Council. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Leeds City Council (25 021 814) 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. Additionally, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. Birmingham City Council (25 022 846) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not allocating him a social worker or meeting his care and support needs. This is because the Council has already taken suitable action in response to the issues raised in Mr X’s complaint. Manchester City Council (25 027 039) Summary: We find no fault in the way the Council carried out a safeguarding enquiry, but its communication regarding the police involvement could have been clearer. Worcestershire County Council (25 015 651) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s provision of information to Mr X. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (25 016 069) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council met Mrs X’s care needs after stopping her direct payments. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome. Shropshire Council (25 019 659) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a financial assessment for Mrs Y. The injustice is not significant enough to warrant us investigating. Buckinghamshire Council (25 019 765) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s funding of Ms X’s daughter’s care. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and significant injustice. London Borough of Lambeth (25 023 271) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Miss 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. Oxfordshire County Council (25 024 826) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council failing to consult with the local community and relevant organisations before it made changes to short-term care options. This is because the personal injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation. Sheffield City Council (25 031 815) 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. Suffolk County Council (26 000 697) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s records being inaccurate. This is because there is another body better placed to consider her concerns. Northumberland County Council (25 013 045) Summary: The Council commissioned Care Home was at fault for the delay telling Mr X about his father’s condition deteriorating and that he was taken by ambulance to the hospital. The Care Home has apologised for the distress caused and made service improvements to prevent it happening again. Lincolnshire County Council (25 020 969) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint alleging the Council provided information to the Office of the Public Guardian without her consent. This is because it concerns matters currently before the court. Cornwall Council (25 021 328) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly decided his wife was not eligible for six weeks of free care when she was discharged from hospital. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify us investigating. Somerset Council (25 021 442) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council handled communications with her following her mother’s death. Any outstanding injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. London Borough of Camden (25 030 846) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s response to her complaint about an Occupational Therapy assessment. This is because we are unlikely to add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and also as there is a more suitable body better placed to consider. Lancashire County Council (25 031 084) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an officer’s response to Miss X when she sought safeguarding assistance in 2024. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate. Kent County Council (26 000 108) 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. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (26 002 254) 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. City of York Council (25 015 292) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council managed his daughter, Miss Z’s, move to a residential home and the personal allowance she received. Any injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation. Nottinghamshire County Council (25 018 344) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to conduct care assessments. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider it now. We will not investigate the rest of the complaint as there is insufficient injustice to warrant further investigation. Cornwall Council (25 020 377) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision Mrs Z deliberately deprived herself of capital to avoid paying for care. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council came to its decision to justify an investigation. Peterborough City Council (25 030 654) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms 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 Croydon (25 020 580) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s management of his relative, Mrs Y’s, funds. We cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking. The Department for Work and Pensions is better placed to consider the complaint. London Borough of Lewisham (25 012 326) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide the care and support recommended in her carers assessment from March 2024. I have ended this investigation because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate the matter now. Wiltshire Council (26 000 456) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to grant a discretionary companion bus pass. We cannot decide whether the Council’s policy is discriminatory under the Equality Act, as this can only be determined by the courts. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify our involvement. Surrey County Council (25 016 444) Summary: Mr X complains that a Council and Integrated Care Board did not fund his father’s accommodation under section 117 of the Mental Health Act. Mr X said this led to a financial impact for his father and distress for Mr X in pursuing the complaint. We will not investigate this complaint as the Council has repaid the accommodation fees and it would not be proportionate to investigate the time and trouble for Mr X. London Borough of Camden (25 003 613) Summary: The Council was at fault for its failure to properly assess Ms X and her family’s care needs, for its failure to follow her communication passport and for the delay in responding to her complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X to acknowledge the distress, frustration and impact of the lack of support. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council applied its unreasonable behaviour policy. 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