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. Redcar & Cleveland Council (25 013 517) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his adult social care assessments. Some of the complaint is late with no good reason to investigate now. On the parts that are not late, there is not enough evidence of fault. West Sussex County Council (25 015 459) Summary: Miss X complained the Council reduced her adult daughter's care package, failed to provide sufficient funding for her preferred day service, transport and respite, and provided incorrect information about the registration status of the preferred provider. We have not revisited the Council's 2023 funding decision, as this was previously considered and no materially new evidence has been identified. The Council accepted and apologised for the incorrect information it provided about the provider's registration status, and no further fault is found in its actions. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (25 021 800) Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about Mr X’s late brother’s supported accommodation. There is not a good reason for the delay in them bringing the complaint to us. Hampshire County Council (25 022 363) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about poor standards of domiciliary care. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions because it was not responsible for providing or commissioning the care that Mr X received. The care was funded solely by the NHS, and therefore the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman is better placed to consider this complaint. Buckinghamshire Council (25 022 750) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s request for repayment of Direct Payments. This is because there is not enough evidence the Council is at fault to justify an investigation. Essex County Council (25 023 815) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of safeguarding concerns. The Council has already provided a suitable remedy, and we cannot achieve the remaining outcomes Ms X wants. Durham County Council (25 026 041) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about action the Council took when receiving a safeguarding referral. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation. Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (24 018 019) Summary: There was fault on the part of the care provider which led to suffering and distress for Mr X and distress for Mrs X. The care provider acknowledges fault in its record keeping and offers a goodwill payment. It should make a more significant payment to reflect the injustice caused by its actions. Care UK Community Partnerships Ltd (25 008 149) Summary: Mrs Z complained Care UK Community Partnerships Ltd (the care provider) moved her brother, Mr X into unsuitable residential care accommodation without properly assessing his needs and ended his stay without giving notice. She says this distressed Mr X and his family and financially impacted them. We uphold the complaint. The care provider did not properly assess Mr X’s care and support needs and did not properly respond to Mrs Z’s complaint. Mr X and Mrs Z suffered injustice. The care provider has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and improve its service. Medway Council (25 013 335) Summary: Mrs B complained the Council has failed to provide her daughter with care and support and has failed to provide her with any support as a carer. We found delay in carrying out a financial assessment and service failure in finding a personal assistant caused uncertainty and distress. The Council has agreed to make symbolic payments to Mrs B and her daughter to remedy this. Kent County Council (25 022 617) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to provide Mrs X with a breakdown of care costs for the care her aunt received. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (25 024 541) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about adult care charges. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Kemble Developments Limited (25 026 489) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr and Mrs Y’s care provider giving notice and ending their care package. There is not enough evidence of fault and further investigation would not add to the care provider’s responses. London Borough of Hackney (26 010 633) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a concern about a resident. The law does not allow us to consider actions the Council has taken as a social housing provider. Also, there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council responded to a safeguarding report to justify investigating. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (25 010 304) Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (25 010 304) Somerset Council (25 013 459) Summary: X complains about the Council’s failure to complete the support planning process after it assessed their eligible care and support needs in 2024. X also complains about misinformation the Council provided about how any support may be funded. We find fault because the Council delayed in completing the support plan and did not set out how it could meet X’s eligible needs. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and contact X. London Borough of Hackney (25 014 346) Summary: The Council was at fault in delaying in allocating a social worker for Mr X. This caused a delay in the Council’s reassessment of Mr X’s eligible care needs, and the assessment of his family members’ support needs. The Council also delayed in finding a supported living placement for Mr X, in arranging increased day centre provision for him in the interim, and in considering whether Mr X’s mother could be employed as his personal assistant. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council will apologise and make payments to the people affected. It will also explain how it has implemented the recommendation of a safeguarding enquiry into Mr X’s care. Gloucestershire County Council (25 020 708) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about her daughter’s placement at the Council’s commissioned independent living accommodation. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault and a further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Leicestershire County Council (25 026 764) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about establishing contact with his mother, about whom he raised safeguarding concerns. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and an investigation by the Ombudsman would not add any further meaningful outcome. London Borough of Lambeth (25 006 731) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to properly assess his needs because Mr X took court action. Mr X would need to raise any complaint about the latest assessment from late 2025, that was not part of his court action, with the Council and give it the opportunity to investigate before we could consider it. Essex County Council (25 010 580) Summary: The Council was at fault. It delayed reaching a decision and caused confusion on whether Mrs X could be paid as her adult son, Mr Y’s, personal assistant and if Mrs X’s husband, Mr X, could become Mr Y’s direct payment signatory. This caused Mr and Mrs X uncertainty and frustration. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment. Buckinghamshire Council (25 013 013) Summary: Mrs X complained to the Council that her father, Mr Y, was not properly cared for at a residential home. She said the care provider, acting on behalf of the Council, failed to properly acknowledge or address her concerns. We found the Council at fault because the care provider it commissioned did not consistently meet Mr Y’s identified care needs. The Council has already taken appropriate action to resolve the situation, including supporting a move to a more suitable residential placement. It has also agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused. Staffordshire County Council (25 013 338) Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of Ms Y that the Council failed to review Ms Y’s care needs assessment and support plan. We find the Council at fault for significant delay in completing the assessment and support plan. This caused Ms X ongoing distress and frustration. We recommend the Council apologises, makes a payment to Ms X for distress and uncertainty, and review its processes for signing off and sharing care assessments. Devon County Council (25 016 620) Summary: Ms X complained about the Council charging her father, Mr Y, for residential care fees after his move to a new care home. Ms X said the Council gave inconsistent information about the cost of the care and pressured the family to accept a particular placement. She said this caused the family distress and confusion. We have found no fault with the Council’s actions. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (25 017 371) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s care charges because there is not enough evidence of fault. Blackpool Borough Council (25 023 138) Summary: The Council was at fault for not providing Mrs X with required information about financial arrangements when her relative, Mr Y, moved to a care home in another council area. This caused Mrs X uncertainty and distress as she could not pay the requested top-up, placing Mr Y’s placement at risk. The Council has agreed to reduce the third party top-up to enable Mr Y to remain in the care home. The Council has also agreed to apologise to Mrs X, reimburse her for the top up she initially paid and make service improvements to prevent similar situations in the future. Cheshire East Council (25 025 339) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in issuing a final bill for care fees as it would be unlikely to change the outcome of the complaint. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (25 027 062) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council handled her case when she was fleeing domestic abuse. The complaint is late and there is no good reason for us to consider it now. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (25 027 632) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to safeguarding concerns. This is because further investigation is unlikely to find fault by the Council. South Ribble Borough Council (26 003 951) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment for a Disabled Facilities Grant. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Thurrock Council (26 008 469) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s adult social care financial assessment, charging decision, and its decision to take legal action against Mr X. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about the start of court action or what happened in court. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (25 020 141) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint concerning the Council’s care planning for Ms X’s relative. This is because we are unlikely to achieve a meaningful outcome. Two remaining complaint items are premature and too early for us to investigate. Sunderland City Council (25 023 183) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint the Council did not fully consider her eligible care needs. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Devon County Council (25 023 220) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council wrongly refused to classify the costs of some of her daughter’s social activities, food and petrol as disability related expenditure. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. West Sussex County Council (25 026 315) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a safeguarding referral. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. City of Doncaster Council (26 009 611) Summary: We will not investigate X’s complaint about a financial assessment to decide how much their mother should pay towards her care costs. This is because X’s complaint is made late. Cheshire West & Chester Council (26 009 768) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s contact with X. Social Work England is another body that is better placed to look at their concerns. 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