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. Oxfordshire County Council (25 008 208) Summary: There was a delay in completing a support plan following assessment and increasing the funding as a result. There was also some confusion over activities allowed for Mr X under Direct Payments. The Council backdated some payments to the time of the assessment and has sought to complete a further review but so far without success. Westminster City Council (25 008 898) Summary: Ms B complained that the Council failed to properly consider her request for a social care assessment, inform her of its decision or provide a befriending service. We found the Council did properly consider her request for an assessment but failed to notify Miss B in writing of the decision and the reasons for it. It has also delayed in finding a befriending service for her. The Council has agreed to apologise, and make a symbolic payment. Telford & Wrekin Council (25 008 993) Summary: Mrs Y complained the Council placed her brother, Mr X, in unsuitable accommodation after he left hospital and did not provide proper care and support. She says this distressed him and caused medical problems. The Council was at fault. It delayed an accommodation referral, failed to deliver support and did not respond properly to complaints. The Council has agreed to apologise. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (25 012 049) Summary: The Council was not at fault in the way it charged Mr X for his care. His savings were correctly assessed as capital for the relevant period. Since his placement changed from residential care there has been no charge. Shropshire Council (25 018 825) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions relating to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisation to place Ms X at a care home. This is because Mrs X has already asked the Court of Protection to consider this decision. The law will not allow us to consider a complaint where court action has started. Essex County Council (25 023 290) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with Mrs X’s application to renew her blue badge. We consider further investigation will not lead to a different outcome. Norfolk County Council (25 023 582) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint, made on behalf of Mrs X, about the Council’s decision to treat financial gifts from Mrs X’s accounts to family members as a deprivation of assets and notional capital for care fees purposes. There is not enough evidence of Council fault to justify us investigating. Blackburn with Darwen Council (25 025 128) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X's Blue Badge application because there is not enough evidence of fault. We will not investigate Mr X's concerns about Freedom of Information requests because these are matters the Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider. Dale Care Ltd (25 028 401) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Care Provider managed his direct debit payment for his care fees. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Care Provider and the injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation. Staffordshire County Council (25 030 360) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council recovering funds from the proceeds of the sale of her late parent’s property in 2019. The complaint is late, and there is no good reason to investigate it now. Medway Council (26 001 775) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s commissioned Nursing Home donating her late mother’s belongings. This is because a further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and we could not add to the previous investigation. Wakefield Metropolitan District Council (25 008 455) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X’s relative’s care. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome requested as it was decided in court. And, because the remaining matters are premature and therefore too early for us to intervene. Birmingham City Council (25 008 475) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s alleged failure to meet her assessed care and support needs and about the standard of care provided to her by the Council’s commissioned domiciliary care providers. There was fault by the Council for its delays with reassessing Miss X’s care needs and with implementing her agreed direct payment managed account. This caused injustice to Miss X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused. Suffolk County Council (25 010 959) Summary: The Council was at fault as it did not properly plan for Mr Y’s transition to adult care services and delayed completing an assessment of Mr Y’s adult care needs. This caused avoidable uncertainty, distress and frustration to Mr Y and Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the fault and the injustice caused. It also agreed to service improvements to prevent recurrence. London Borough of Lewisham (25 011 369) Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of Mr Y that the Council wrongly suspended his direct payments while he was in hospital. There was no fault in the actions of the Council. Essex County Council (25 012 336) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the number of hours Mr Y receives within his care package and how these are arranged because it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add to the Council’s response or achieve anything further for Mr Y. London Borough of Haringey (25 012 875) Summary: Ms X complains the Council delayed in progressing a request for repairs/adaptations to her property. Ms X says the Council delayed in completing an assessment by an Occupational Therapist and providing her with a copy of taking any action. Miss X also complains the Council has not included all items in its assessment of her Disability Related Expenses from January 2025 onwards. Ms X says this has delayed her getting a wheelchair as the property is not currently suited for one, leaving her confined indoors and has caused her frustration. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for delay in referring the case to an Occupational Therapist. The Council has agreed to write to Miss X to apologise, pay her a symbolic payment and complete a service improvement. London Borough of Islington (25 016 560) Summary: Miss X complained about the contact and support provided to Mr Z by social services during his transition between placements. We have ended our investigation as the Council has proposed action which provides a suitable remedy. London Borough of Havering (25 021 463) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the outcome of the Council’s care and support assessment for Mr X. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. London Borough of Wandsworth (25 022 510) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that Miss X can pay a contribution for her care costs. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (25 024 838) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of Mr X's access to domestic abuse support. This is because further investigation would be unlikely to find evidence of fault. Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (25 026 071) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the care provider managed the care of Mrs X’s mother. We could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation and we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants. London Borough of Sutton (25 029 796) Summary: We will not investigate a complaint about the conduct of a conversation with a patient at their hospital bedside, or about discharge planning or complaint handling. It is unlikely an investigation would find a significant outstanding injustice related to these matters. Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (25 002 922) Summary: Ms Y complained that the Council failed to safeguard her relative Ms X, consider her needs as Ms X’s primary carer and reimburse her for care she arranged. There is no fault in how the Council assessed Ms X’s care and support needs or carried out a carers assessment for Ms Y. The Council also addressed Ms Y’s complaint about outstanding payments for Ms X’s care without fault. Birmingham City Council (25 007 691) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide care and support and kept changing his social worker. He says this distressed him and stopped him moving home. The Council was at fault. It failed to review Mr X’s care and support plan and did not properly respond to complaints. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a financial payment. London Borough of Newham (25 008 005) Summary: Mr Z, on behalf of his niece, Ms X, complained that despite no change in her condition, the Council reduced her package of care from 69 to 51.5 hours per week. The Council followed the correct procedure to review Ms X’s care needs and then used its professional judgement to determine how to meet those needs. However, it delayed getting an occupational therapy assessment and implementing the recommendation to increase the hours to 53 per week. A suitable remedy for the distress and missed provision is agreed. Warwickshire County Council (25 010 702) Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to provide the full amount of care in Ms Y’s care plan, which it accepted in its complaint response. This has caused her financial injustice as she paid for private carers to top up her care package. The Council should make a payment to reflect the costs of the extra care Ms Y had paid for. London Borough of Ealing (25 012 819) Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed telling him about his care charges. We find the Council was at fault for its delay in completing Mr X’s financial assessment and for its delay in contacting him for his financial information. This meant Mr X lost the opportunity to make a fully informed decision about his care package before it started. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and implement a service improvement. Worcestershire County Council (25 014 283) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council took almost two years to complete a re-assessment of her care needs. And that following the assessment her care hours have been wrongly reduced. Mrs X also complains the Council has asked her to return a backdated payment it made to address a shortfall in her personal budget. We found the delays in completing Mrs X’s assessment and in reviewing her personal budget and direct payments are fault. These faults have caused Mrs X avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs X and will not seek to recover the backdated payment. It will also take action to improve its service. West Northamptonshire Council (25 015 876) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to ensure he had the required level of support in place when his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan ended in July 2025. We found the Council failed to carry out a timely review despite advance notice the EHC Plan was ending, failed to complete an annual review in 2024, communicated poorly throughout the process, and incorrectly refused to escalate his complaint while the matter remained unresolved. These faults caused Mr X significant injustice through missed support, distress, uncertainty, avoidable reliance on family members, and time and trouble pursuing the Council for updates and resolution. The Council has agreed to apologise, and make a payment to Mr X. Essex County Council (25 020 036) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council handled Mrs B’s personal data. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider a complaint. London Borough of Harrow (25 021 186) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council assessed Mrs Y’s finances to determine how much she should contribute to the cost of her care. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome. London Borough of Southwark (25 022 302) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s Care Act assessment of Mr Y because there is not enough evidence of fault. Manchester City Council (25 001 178) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s Adult Social Care Service’s involvement with her mother, Ms Y, after Ms Y was discharged from hospital. There was no fault in the Council’s decision making, communication, or in the processes it followed. London Borough of Wandsworth (25 007 664) Summary: The Council delayed referring Mr X for an advocate, failed to record the reasonable adjustments it had agreed, delayed explaining why it needed to carry out an in person assessment and failed to respond to his complaint properly. An apology, payment to Mr X, for the Council to reopen the assessment and guidance for officers is satisfactory remedy. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (25 008 639) Summary: Mrs X and Mrs Z complain about their mother’s care and treatment by Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council and Locala. We found fault by the Council and Locala in relation to communication and parts of Mrs Y’s end of life care. As a result, Mrs X and Mrs Z were caused uncertainty, frustration and distress. We recommend the Council and Locala apologise, pay a total of £600 and make systemic improvements. We did not find fault with Mrs Y’s daily care and discharge planning. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 013 490) Summary: The Council delayed taking steps to explore suitable supported living accommodation for Mr and Mrs B in their preferred location. It also delayed initiating the continuity of care process. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr and Mrs B. It has also agreed to make service improvements. Essex County Council (25 016 056) Summary: There was fault in the way the Council considered Mrs Y's claimed social transport costs, heating and gardening costs as disability-related expenditure. The Council did not provide a clear explanation for refusing these claims and there is no evidence it properly considered Mrs Y's individual circumstances. This caused uncertainty about whether it would have reached a different decision had it done so. There was no fault in the Council's care assessment or support planning for Mrs Y. North Northamptonshire Council (25 020 613) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Care Home’s handling of her relative’s, Mr Y’s, care fees. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. Norfolk County Council (25 025 692) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s administration of care home fees as any fault in this regard did not cause the complainant a level of injustice that would warrant our further involvement. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (26 004 060) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a Council safeguarding decision. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Lincolnshire County Council (26 004 146) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint alleging safeguarding failures as it is late. There are no good reasons to investigate now. RKL Care Ltd (25 014 065) Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her late mother, Mrs Y, about the care she received from the Care Provider. We found it at fault for failing to provide Mrs Y with her prescribed medication and for poor record keeping. The Care Provider has apologised and issued a partial refund. It has also agreed to make a symbolic payment and review its procedures. Together, these actions are a suitable remedy. London Borough of Camden (25 019 995) Summary: Mrs X complains about her mother, Ms Y’s, residential care which is funded by the London Borough of Camden and NHS West and North London ICB. We will not consider Mrs X’s complaint at this time. There are ongoing proceedings in the Court of Protection in relation to key aspects of Ms Y’s care. It would not be appropriate for us to consider her complaint further until the Court's proceedings have concluded. Tewkesbury Borough Council (25 023 994) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council carried out adaptations to Ms X’s home that it funded by a Disabled Facilities Grant. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement. Staffordshire County Council (25 027 842) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council assessed Ms X’s finances to calculate her contributions to the cost of her care. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in how it calculated her contribution. Any fault due to delay in the Council reassessing Ms X’s finances did not cause her an injustice. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (26 004 426) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint alleging that he is being prevented from having contact with his relative. This is because it concerns matters arising from a decision made by a court. 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