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 Hillingdon (25 009 471) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to respond when she told it the care provider was increasing its hourly rate for her sister, Miss Y’s, care. Miss X said Miss Y’s care reduced and the family are in debt. There was fault in the way the Council delayed reviewing and increasing the direct payment amount and complaint handling was poor. This distressed Miss X and Miss Y was placed at risk of harm. The Council agreed to apologise, make a financial payment, take the actions it agreed to to increase the direct payment rate and remove the debt and evidence its service improvements. Cornwall Council (25 010 883) Summary: There was no fault on the part of the Council in the charges it applied for the late Mr B’s care. There is no evidence Mr B or his relative Mr X were told by the Council the care would be free of charge. Sheffield City Council (25 011 382) Summary: The Council delayed assessing and meeting Mr X’s eligible care and support needs under the Care Act 2014, causing him avoidable stress and difficulty London Borough of Tower Hamlets (25 011 711) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his care and support needs. We do not found fault in the overall progression of Mr X’s care and support planning or in the arrangements made for his direct payments once he confirmed he wished to proceed. However, we do find fault in the delay completing the financial assessment, the Council incorrectly advising Mr X he was required to contribute towards his care costs, failures to consistently record and implement agreed reasonable adjustments, and delays in complaint handling. These faults caused Mr X avoidable distress, frustration, uncertainty, and time and trouble. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (25 018 351) Summary: The investigation is discontinued because the Council agreed a remedy for issues arising from the financial assessment of Mr Y, which Ms X is satisfied with this and considers the matters resolved. She requested the complaint be closed. Bracknell Forest Council (25 018 356) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council carried out an assessment and ended direct payments. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. London Borough of Wandsworth (25 020 349) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the support the Council’s adult services provided Miss X in relation to her housing. There is insufficient evidence of fault. Derbyshire County Council (25 020 788) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions and decisions of an Older Adult Mental Health Team concerning Mr X’s father. This is because the actions are those of an NHS body, not the Council. Nightingale Homecare East Sussex Limited (25 021 354) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of domiciliary care. Investigation by us is not likely to lead to a different outcome and we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X seeks. Somerset Council (25 022 316) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council’s commissioned Care Provider incorrectly used a hoist which caused her daughter, Miss Y, to fall. This is because a further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and we could not add to the previous investigation. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (25 024 060) Summary: We will not investigate Ms H’s complaint about the care her late partner Mr O received at a care home, including issues relating to falls and pressure area care. We are unlikely to find fault by the care home on the key issues. Also, some of the complaints are about old events and we are unlikely to be able to reach reliable conclusions about them now. Staffordshire County Council (24 020 438) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s unsuccessful application to seek welfare deputyship over his sister - Ms Y. Mr X also raised concerns about the Council’s handling of the complaint, the care Ms Y received and the actions of the Council and its staff. He says that this issue has cost substantial legal fees and caused much distress to him and his family. We found the Council at fault which caused Mr X injustice. The Council will act to apologise in consideration of this. London Borough of Haringey (25 009 049) Summary: Ms X complains on behalf of Mr Y that the Council wrongly reduced his attendance at a day care centre causing distress. We found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. We found fault as the Council delayed in responding to Ms X’s complaint. The Council has accepted it was at fault and already apologised to Ms X and Mr Y which is suitable action for it to take. We have completed our investigation. Gloucestershire County Council (25 011 571) Summary: Mrs B complained about the care her mother, Mrs C, received at the Nursing Home and the lack of additional nursing care for which she received Funded Nursing Care (FNC). We found fault with how the Council communicated with Mrs B, it did not explain Mrs C had to be assessed before she would receive FNC. This caused uncertainty and left Mrs A feeling she was not listened to. We also found fault with the Care Trust’s complaint handling, it also did not explain Mrs C had to be assessed before the nursing home received the additional funding. This led to further uncertainty for Mrs B. We made recommendations and the organisations agreed to remedy this. The Inclusion Project Limited (25 019 776) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Care Provider’s medical protocols. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. St. George's Hospital Limited (25 020 520) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider increasing Mrs Y’s fees. Investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (25 021 261) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled Mrs Y’s discharge from hospital at this time. A coroner’s inquest is ongoing, covering the matters Mr X complained to us about. We could not meaningfully investigate the complaint until that process has completed. London Borough of Southwark (25 022 365) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a breakdown in her care after a support worker left at short notice. Investigation would be unlikely to lead to a significantly different outcome to that already achieved via the complaint to the agency on the Council’s behalf. Blaby District Council (25 023 818) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s application for a relocation grant. There is not enough evidence of fault causing significant enough personal injustice to warrant investigation. Colten Care (2009) Limited (26 000 036) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Care Provider failing to take appropriate action in relation to concerns about his lack of safety as a visitor of its care home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Care Provider and it would be reasonable for Mr X to pursue the matter with the Police. Staffordshire County Council (26 001 756) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care charging. The complaint is late, and it was reasonable to expect Mrs X to have complained to us sooner. Suffolk County Council (25 011 186) Summary: The Council was at fault for delay completing the care act assessment, care and support plan and financial assessment and failing to share these with the family. It also failed to pause invoices when it had agreed to do so. The Council should apologise and make a financial payment to remedy the distress caused. London Borough of Brent (25 020 573) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a Deprivation of Liberty decision for Ms A as we would not achieve a worthwhile outcome by doing so. Prime Life Ltd (25 021 118) Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about delay in a deprivation of liberty being authorised in a care home. There is not a good reason for the delay in the complaint being brought to us. Brighton & Hove City Council (25 013 451) Summary: The Council acknowledges a delay in completing Mrs X’s needs assessment and accepts that it could have explored alternative methods of contact to carry out the assessment. Surrey County Council (25 028 036) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council recording inaccurate information and sharing information without her consent. This is because it would be reasonable for Mrs X to take her complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office. London Borough of Lewisham (25 010 492) Summary: Mrs Y complained about the Council’s failure to assess her son’s care needs before reducing his support. We found no fault with the Council. Worcestershire County Council (25 012 805) Summary: Ms W complains about the care her father received at Haresbrook Park Care Home in the period before his death. We find the Council at fault for some parts of the care it commissioned. In addition to the service improvements already made, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment in recognition of the avoidable distress caused to Ms W. Wyre Borough Council (25 014 703) Summary: There was no fault in how the Council handled adaptations to Mr X’s bathroom funded through a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (25 021 297) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an invoice for care charges the Council sent to Miss X and the way it followed its debt recovery procedures. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Staffordshire County Council (25 021 647) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a financial assessment for care costs. This is because it is late and there are no good reasons why the complainant could not have come to us sooner. Cheshire East Council (25 022 030) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered funds held in a joint bank account when it completed a financial assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (25 002 451) Summary: Mrs E complains the Council has failed to properly assess charges for her son’s adult social care. He now has a large debt which is unaffordable. There was no fault in how the Council made its decision, or considered Mrs E’s appeal. This means we cannot consider the merits of the decision. East Sussex County Council (25 003 885) Summary: Mr X complained that the Council did not inform him that additional charges may be required to maintain his father, Mr Y’s, care home placement once his capital fell below the funding threshold. We have found no fault. The care home was arranged and funded privately. When Mr Y’s capital later reduced, the Council explained its funding limits and the need for a top-up if he remained in the same home. Acorn Lodge Limited (25 008 747) Summary: Acorn Lodge Limited, was at fault for failing to carry out a review of Mrs Y’s care needs prior to issuing her with an eviction notice. The care provider has agreed to apologise and make a payment to remedy the injustice caused. Hamberley Care (Enfield) Limited (25 009 224) Summary: There was fault by the Care Home in the quality of care it provided to Ms X’s late mother, Mrs Y and in the Care Provider’s complaint response. The Care Provider has apologised to Ms X, waived the care fees and made service improvements, which is an appropriate remedy for the distress caused. Cheshire West & Chester Council (25 018 445) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to Mrs Y’s best interests. The Court of Protection will be considering these matters, and it is best placed to consider the matters in dispute. London Borough of Hackney (25 007 545) Summary: Ms A complains about a Council, Care Home and an Integrated Care Board regarding a referral for her sister, Ms B’s suspected cancer. Ms A says a delayed referral led to delayed treatment for her sister and she subsequently died. We found fault in communication and complaint handling leading to uncertainty for Ms A. The Care Home has agreed to our recommendations to carry out actions to addresses this uncertainty. Bridge Side Lodge Care Home (25 007 545a) Summary: Ms A complains about a Council, Care Home and an Integrated Care Board regarding a referral for her sister, Ms B’s suspected cancer. Ms A says a delayed referral led to delayed treatment for her sister and she subsequently died. We found fault in communication and complaint handling leading to uncertainty for Ms A. The Care Home has agreed to our recommendations to carry out actions to addresses this uncertainty. 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