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 Southwark (25 012 497) Summary: The Council was at fault, when acting as Ms Y’s deputy, for not paying her telephone bill leading to her line being cut off. The Council has already remedied the injustice caused. The Council failed to arrange for Ms Y to attend a meeting, for which it has apologised. The Council was at fault for delay in responding to a request Ms Y’s relative, Ms X made, but this did not cause significant injustice. There is no fault in how the Council managed Ms Y’s finances or made best interests decisions on her behalf. Hertfordshire County Council (25 014 121) Summary: Mr X complained how the Council handled his financial assessment. He also says there were flaws in its complaints handling. We find some fault with the Council’s handling of Mr X’s financial assessment because it failed to ask for relevant information at the outset and it sent him differing information about his client contribution. The Council was also at fault for how it handled Mr X’s complaint. These faults caused Mr X frustration, confusion and upset. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a payment to him. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (25 020 134) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his safeguarding concern. The claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement. City of Doncaster Council (25 022 242) Summary: Mr A complains about the way staff from the Council and the Integrated Care Board behaved at a meeting. We will not investigate Mr A’s complaint because it is unlikely we can achieve anything more. North Northamptonshire Council (25 022 473) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council provided information about the charges for her care. The Council waved the initial charges and there is not enough evidence of fault arising from the later charging. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (25 024 001) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards application being authorised for Mrs Y. This is because there is another body better placed to consider part of this complaint and we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions. Rutland County Council (25 028 291) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about some comments by a member of care home staff. We are unlikely to add anything further to the investigation already completed. There is also not enough personal injustice to warrant further investigation. GG Total Care Ltd (26 005 859) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an injury the Care Provider caused to Mr X. This is because Mr X has an alternative legal remedy, through the courts, which would achieve the outcome he wants. We cannot say whether the Care Provider was liable for his injury and so it would be reasonable to expect him to use this alternative remedy. Blackpool Borough Council (26 009 437) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a document filed with the court. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about the start of court proceedings or what happened in court. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (24 022 272) Summary: Y complained about various aspects of the Council’s involvement with his care and support. We found there was some fault with the Council’s communication with Y. We also found a care provider failed to keep appropriate records. There was also a failure to properly consider and explain its position regarding reasonable adjustments Y requested about document formats. We did not find fault with how the Council or a care provider addressed safeguarding issues or involved Y in care assessments. We recommended an apology and actions to put things right. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (24 022 319) Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council supported her as her son’s carer and how the Council and a care provider dealt with safeguarding matters. We found there was no fault in the way safeguarding matters were handled. However, we found delay in assessing Miss X’s needs as a carer, mishandling of her complaint and a need for improved record keeping by a care provider. We recommended an apology and actions to put things right. City of Doncaster Council (25 016 604) Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint about the Council’s decision to consider gifts he made as a deprivation of assets when assessing his contributions to care costs. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (25 019 759) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider’s communication with the family of a person in its care. Any injustice caused to the family is not sufficient in itself to justify investigation by the Ombudsman. London Borough of Southwark (25 021 154) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s care assessment. This is because further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome. London Borough of Merton (25 022 819) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to provide meaningful support to Mrs X and her daughter. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (25 022 945) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment for alcohol support services. This is because in response to the complaint the Council admitted fault and offered the services. Therefore there is insufficient injustice to warrant further investigation. London Borough of Croydon (26 009 058) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions relating to a property X was evicted from. Nor will we consider the Council’s response to concerns about that property after they were evicted. We have already decided not to investigate part of the complaint in an earlier investigation and will not reconsider that decision. The Council’s actions more recently have not caused X any significant injustice. Trafford Council (25 008 105) Summary: There was no fault by the Council in the way it altered the residential care status of Mrs S to self-funder. Nottingham City Council (25 012 235) Summary: Ms X complains the Council has not completed the agreed adaptations to her home following a previous Ombudsman investigation in 2024. There is continuing fault causing injustice because the Council has not progressed the agreed works within appropriate timescales. The resulting delay is significant and has affected Ms X’s ability to use her home in a way that meets her needs. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment, and take action to improve its service. Liverpool City Council (25 013 759) Summary: Mrs X complained about the care provided to her father – Mr Y. She says that many of the care visits were shorter than the required time of 30 minutes. The failure to complete this meant that Mr Y missed the required care he needed and often Mrs X had to complete these tasks instead. We found the Council at fault. There were instances where some care visits did not go ahead, and others where the visits were short. In consideration of this we found the Council should apologise and make payment to Mrs X to recognise the injustice caused. London Borough of Camden (25 021 982) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a safeguarding enquiry. We cannot investigate actions the Council took as a social landlord, and the Information Commissioner’s office is better placed to consider complaints about data handling. Of the remaining complaint, there is insufficient injustice and evidence of fault to warrant investigation. London Borough of Lambeth (25 022 837) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council meeting his care needs. This is because we are unlikely to add to the Council’s response and there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating. London Borough of Barnet (26 008 923) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s advice to X about care and support needs, including how to access other agencies that could assist them. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify investigating. Liverpool City Council (24 020 644) Summary: Mr A complained about a Mental Health Act assessment. We will not investigate his complaint because we are not likely to find an Approved Mental Health Professional for Liverpool City Council, or two Section 12 doctors for Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust and NHS Cheshire and Merseyside Integrated Care Board acted with fault. Halton Borough Council (24 023 386) Summary: Mr X complained that, after he made allegations that his father’s care was inadequate, the Council did not inform the Care Quality Commission of its safeguarding investigation findings. He also says the findings did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the care provider’s failings. We have found fault in the Council’s delay in informing Mr X of the outcome of the safeguarding investigation. The Council also failed to inform the Care Quality Commission of its findings or to check the Care Provider had done so. However, these matters did not cause Mr X or his father significant injustice. And we have found no fault in the Council’s safeguarding enquiries. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (25 010 243) Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with her mother, Mrs Y’s, care and support needs. The Council was at fault for failing to offer a carers assessment and delaying in responding to Mrs X’s complaint. This caused Mrs X frustration and uncertainty. The Council should apologise and make a payment to recognise the injustice caused. Suffolk County Council (25 013 781) Summary: There were delays in the Council’s financial assessment of Mr C and in its consideration of disability related expenditure but the Council has already remedied these faults. However, the Council had still not considered all of the DREs that Ms B submitted. The Council has now agreed to do so. London Borough of Redbridge (25 027 725) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to reduce Mrs X allocated care hours. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement. Durham County Council (26 001 497) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the adult social care support Mr Y received at home. This is because we could not add to the Council’s response. Slough Borough Council (25 012 822) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a care support package. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, we cannot achieve the outcome Miss X wants and the Information Commissioner’s Office would be better placed to consider part of Miss X’s complaint. Suffolk County Council (25 014 176) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about charges for her relative, Ms Y’s care. There is insufficient evidence of fault and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome. Medway Council (25 017 056) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to implement a care and support plan. This is because the matter has been dealt with by the court and a permanent legal bar prevents us from investigating this matter. London Borough of Havering (25 019 605) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to reduce her relative’s, Mrs Y’s, direct care payments. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s assessment of Mrs Y’s care and support needs. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (25 021 648) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the late Mrs Y’s care charges because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Somerset Council (25 022 217) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the impact on her when the Council placed her partner in a care home. This is because we cannot achieve a worthwhile outcome. Devon County Council (25 023 200) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council assessed a Blue Badge application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement. Leicester City Council (25 024 540) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement in Mr X’s care. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason for us to investigate it now. Care UK Community Partnerships Ltd (25 025 244) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a care home providing a poor standard of care to her late father. This is because we could not add to the Care Provider’s investigation and a further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. The Council has also offered an appropriate remedy. Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (25 027 378) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the poor care her late father, Mr Y, received at the Care Home. This is because the complaint is late. Kent County Council (26 002 256) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care provision. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Bracknell Forest Council (25 010 124) Summary: Ms C complains the Care Provider, acting for the Council and ICB, failed to provide satisfactory care to Mrs D which resulted in her not receiving suitable health care and support. Ms C also complains the Council failed to investigate the Care Provider through safeguarding properly. There was service failure by the Care Provider which has caused uncertainty about whether Mrs D received suitable care and support. The Council, and Care Provider have agreed to make service improvements and a symbolic payment to Ms C for the distress caused by the service failure. 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