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. Telford & Wrekin Council (25 001 925) Summary: The Council’s calculation of Mrs X’s contribution towards her care package was incorrect which led it to wrongly tell her she had a debt to pay, the Council failed to carry out a carer assessment for Mrs X’s husband and sent Mrs X communications which were not in accordance with her reasonable adjustments. That caused Mrs X distress, led to her feeling unable to reinstate her care package and left her with uncertainty. An apology, payment to Mrs X, completion of a care review to include a carers assessment, a breakdown of the Council’s calculations for the amount Mrs X overpaid and guidance to officers is satisfactory remedy. South Gloucestershire Council (25 007 565) Summary: Mrs D complains about the Council’s delays in reviewing her daughter’s care plan, cutting her number of hours of care and support, not increasing a direct payment and delaying a referral for specialist counselling. We uphold the complaint because of some contradictory record keeping and not sending Mrs D some records, causing some uncertainty. The Council has agreed to our recommendations. Kent County Council (25 012 016) Summary: Mrs C complained about the care her father, Mr D received at the end of his life in a Council-funded care home. We have found fault with the Care Provider. In addition to the action already taken to improve the Care Provider’s procedures, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs C, make a symbolic payment and ensure the Care Provider notifies the Council in future of complaints made about the care provided to Council-funded residents. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (25 010 179) Summary: Mrs X complained the council did not safeguard her relative, Mr Y. She also complained the Council did not respond to her complaint. Mrs X said this distressed her and Mr Y was left in an unsafe situation, resulting in harm and hospital admission. There was fault in the way the Council did not consider safeguarding reports and did not respond to Mrs X’s complaint. This frustrated Mrs X and caused her uncertainty. The Council agreed to apologise and make a financial payment. Sheffield City Council (25 011 974) Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to manage the family’s expectations about the transfer of staff from care provider A to care provider B. It was also at fault for delay processing the direct payments and delay responding to the complaint. The Council has agreed a financial remedy for the distress this caused to the family. North Northamptonshire Council (24 019 678) Summary: The Council was at fault as it failed to meet Mr X’s eligible unmet social care needs. This caused Ms X avoidable distress because she had to provide informal care and Mr X distress because he missed out on social and community activities which Ms X is not in a position to support him with. The Council will issue an apology, make symbolic payments to reflect the distress, re-contact possible providers and complete the review of Mr X’s care and support plan. Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (25 003 062) Summary: Ms X complained about the standard of her reablement care after she suffered a stroke. The Council was at fault because the care provider failed to follow its no reply policy when Ms X fell at home. This caused Ms X uncertainty and avoidable distress which the Council agreed to provide a financial remedy for. Nottinghamshire County Council (25 003 555) Summary: Ms X complained about the standard of care Mr Y received during a period of respite care. The Council was at fault because the care provider failed to carry out some of Mr Y’s care in line with the pre-admission agreement, failed to notify the family about its decision-making, failed to keep records of its decision-making, failed to clarify the position on Mr Y’s medication administration, failed to tell the family about redness to Mr Y’s skin, and failed to seek out of hours medical help. This caused Mr Y’s family uncertainty, frustration and distress which the Council agreed to provide a financial remedy for. Birmingham City Council (25 005 975) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to offer her mother-in-law a choice of residential care home accommodation and wrongly charged her a top up fee. We found fault by the Council in not offering an alternative placement that did not require a top up fee. We consider the Council’s offer to reimburse some of the top up fees and a payment for time and trouble with an apology and service improvement provides a suitable remedy. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (25 006 486) Summary: Mrs F complained on behalf of her grandmother, Mrs B, about the quality of her care in Mulberry Manor, a council commissioned care home. We found no fault in the care provided to Mrs B. The Council failed to respond to Mrs F’s complaint which caused her some time and trouble. It has agreed to apologise to Mrs F to remedy that injustice and make a service improvement in relation to its complaint procedures. London Borough of Southwark (25 001 035) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s contact with the Care Provider. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Live Long Live Well Ltd (25 004 764) Summary: Mr X complained, on behalf of his grandmother Mrs Y, that the Care Provider incorrectly charged her for care she did not request or receive. The Care Provider’s actions caused Mrs Y uncertainty, which is an injustice. The Care Provider has agreed to apologise, repay Ms X for care it should have cancelled, and implement service improvements. London Borough of Hounslow (25 007 112) Summary: The Council was at fault for overcharging Mr Z for his care and support and for failing to properly consider how much it had overcharged him by. This caused his representative, Ms X, confusion. However, the Council ultimately reimbursed Mr Z more than it had overcharged him by, so the fault did not cause him financial harm. The Council will apologise to Ms X and take action to prevent similar fault in future. London Borough of Croydon (25 008 289) Summary: There was fault by the Council in the review of Mr Y’s care and support plan. It said it needed medical evidence and then did not seek this, it failed to take reasonable steps to reach an agreement with Mr Y about changes to the care and support plan and to his direct payment arrangements. The Council also took too long to issue the revised plan. This caused Mr Y avoidable distress and uncertainty. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment and complete further reviews of the care and support plan and direct payment. London Borough of Islington (25 008 535) Summary: There is no fault in the Council’s decision to suspend Ms X’s direct payment or in how it handled a complaint. However, the Council failed to explain why it had not put the direct payment back into place, failed to offer Ms X an assessment later in 2023 and failed to include her advocate in correspondence. That caused Ms X distress and left her with some uncertainty. An apology, a financial award to be deducted from Ms X’s arrears and guidance for officers is satisfactory remedy. Warwickshire County Council (25 010 281) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council failing to ensure improvements were made to care services provided to her late mother, Mrs Y. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council and Mrs X’s personal injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation. Lancashire County Council (25 000 185) Summary: We have discontinued the investigation as it is not clear what the complaint is and whether Ms B wishes to make a complaint. Somerset Council (25 004 350) Summary: We found no fault with the support provided to Mrs X by Somerset Council, Somerset NHS Foundation Trust and NHS Somerset Integrated Care Board following the discharge of her son, Mr Y, from hospital. However, we did find fault with the way the Council and Trust handled Mr Y’s situation when he was threatened with homelessness and the impact this had on Mrs X. The Council and Trust will apologise to Mrs X and pay a financial remedy in recognition of this. 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