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. Herefordshire Council (25 011 334) Summary: The Council failed to respond appropriately to requests from a family struggling in their caring role. It delayed addressing escalating risks, failed to coordinate Mr Y’s case effectively and did not ensure continuity of support. It also failed to complete a carer’s assessment. This caused prolonged stress and uncertainty for the family and had a significant impact on Mr Y’s mother and a teenage sibling. Seaham Care Limited (25 012 758) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Care Provider failed to repay an overpayment it owed Mrs Z. The Provider repaid the money during our investigation. Further investigation would achieve nothing worthwhile. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (25 013 003) Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his grandmother, Mrs X, that the Council gave incorrect advice and wrongly charged for her care. Mrs X was overcharged because the Council failed to action a request to cancel visits. During the investigation, the Council accepted fault, apologised, applied a credit of £367.64 to Mrs X's account, issued a revised invoice and reminded staff to clearly explain financial assessments, care package implementation and charging arrangements before care begins. I am satisfied these actions provide a suitable remedy for the injustice caused and make no further recommendations. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 018 023) Summary: Mr X complained the Council removed Mr Y’s disturbed night carer without following a proper process. This meant Mr X had to step in to provide care to Mr Y at night. We found the Council’s failure to ensure funding continued to enable Mr X to pay for Mr Y’s night care is fault. This fault caused Mr X and Mr Y an injustice. The Council will apologise and make payments to Mr X and Mr Y. West Sussex County Council (25 024 205) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council ending his daughter, Y’s, day care provision. This is because it is late. London Borough of Bromley (25 030 286) Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to provide an appropriate choice of accommodation and for not assessing Mr Y’s capacity or the impact on Mr Y’s well-being of moving care home. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X, pay Mr Y’s care fees and assess whether Mr Y can move care home. Peterborough City Council (25 030 672) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms X’s Blue Badge application because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to justify an investigation. Brighton & Hove City Council (26 009 834) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s provision of care and support to Mr X and Mr Y. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion. Hertfordshire County Council (25 005 357) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s adult social care. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify us investigating. Wakefield Metropolitan District Council (25 013 559) Summary: The Council was at fault for the delay in providing overnight respite care for Mr Y and for failing to properly investigate and respond to all of Ms X's complaints about the respite provider. As a result, Ms X was left without the benefit of overnight respite for a prolonged period and experienced additional stress, frustration and uncertainty. Sanctuary Care Limited (25 014 574) Summary: The Care Provider was at fault for damaging and losing Mrs Y’s clothing. This caused Mrs X frustration and financial costs for replacing the clothing. It was also at fault for one occasion when it delayed washing and dressing Mrs Y and for a delayed complaint response to Mrs X. The Provider has already offered Mrs X a payment which is a suitable remedy for the frustration the faults caused. The Provider was not at fault for its actions after Mrs Y fell and for the hygiene and personal care it provided to Mrs Y. Surrey County Council (25 014 795) Summary: Ms D complained the Council failed to put in place a sufficient care and support package for her son (Mr X) and his carers lacked language and driving skills. She said, as a result Mr X, experienced frustration and a loss of care support. We found no fault in the process the Council follow to review and reassess Mr X’s care and support plan up to Autumn 2025. It therefore reached decisions it was entitled to make. Also, the Council did not commission the care agency, we therefore found no fault in the steps and offers it made to resolve issues with carers. Cornwall Council (25 016 016) Summary: There was fault by the Council, because a social worker gave the complainant’s family incorrect advice about the charging process for adult social care. We are satisfied, though, this misinformation did not alter what the complainant had to pay for her care, and the Council’s apology remedies the remaining injustice. We have therefore completed our investigation. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (25 016 704) Summary: There was no fault by the Council, in the way it commissioned a respite care placement for the complainant, or in the conduct of the care provider’s staff during the placement. We have therefore completed our investigation. London Borough of Enfield (25 022 335) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to apply a discretionary property disregard. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (25 023 235) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council allowing Mr Y to pay legal bills. There is not enough evidence of fault or significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation, and matters have already been considered in court. Royal Borough of Greenwich (25 024 647) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about payments to a personal assistant. This is because we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons why someone could not have complained earlier. Cornwall Council (25 024 875) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the council decide liability for care costs. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Royal Borough of Greenwich (25 028 053) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the care plan provided by the Council, or its decision to not make Direct Payments to her husband. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and any resulting personal injustice is not significant enough to warrant further investigation. Portsmouth City Council (25 029 375) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X’s Blue Badge application because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to justify an investigation. Trafford Council (25 031 197) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s Blue Badge application because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to justify an investigation. Central Bedfordshire Council (26 009 361) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X’s Blue Badge application because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to justify an investigation. Hertfordshire County Council (24 022 538) Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of Mr Y’s care. She complained the Council did not provide suitable accommodation and did not provide suitable care and support. We find no fault with the accommodation provided by the Council. We do find fault with the Council’s handling of Mr Y’s care and support, which caused injustice. The Council agreed to apologise and complete an assessment to remedy the injustice. Wakefield Metropolitan District Council (25 007 911) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to backdate Mr X’s financial assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation. London Borough of Hounslow (25 008 284) Summary: The Council failed to properly record a referral for a social care needs assessment, delayed carrying out a needs assessment, failed to prepare a care and support plan and failed to review whether the support offered was meeting Mr B’s eligible needs. These failings caused Mr B frustration and distress and left him with uncertainty about whether alternative support could have been identified to meet his assessed needs. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and complete a care and support plan with Mr B. It has also agreed to make service improvements. West Sussex County Council (25 012 772) Summary: On behalf of Miss X, Mrs Y complained the Council failed to inform them of the full cost of Miss X’s care for approximately one year. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Suffolk County Council (25 014 909) Summary: There was fault in the Council's handling of some of Ms X's concerns. This along with the Council’s inadequate complaint response caused Ms X avoidable frustration. Royal Borough of Greenwich (25 023 819) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council ending her reablement service and failing to provide additional care assessment or support. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. It is also unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add to the Council’s response. South Gloucestershire Council (26 012 535) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to concerns Mr X raised, about care and support for a family member. We cannot achieve any meaningful outcome by investigating. Worcestershire County Council (26 013 431) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to verify allegations made against Mr X before initiating safeguarding proceedings. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions and there is insufficient injustice to Mr X to warrant an investigation. North Yorkshire Council (25 016 273) Summary: Mrs X complained about delays by the Council and NHS Integrated Care Board (ICB) in assessing her late mother Mrs Y’s eligibility for an NHS contribution to her care costs, leading to a missed period of funding. She also complained about the ICB’s decision to fund fewer than 24 hours a day of one-to-one support for Mrs Y. Mrs X complained to us late, more than 12 months after becoming aware of the problem. There are no good reasons for us to investigate the complaint now. London Borough of Harrow (25 024 158) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions regarding the care of Ms Y. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and there is a body better placed to consider parts of the complaint. Dorset Council (26 006 929) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about decisions made by Dorset Council and Cross Road Practice in relation to her mother’s mental capacity. The Council has accepted there was fault with the way it communicated and apologised. We are unlikely to achieve more. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (25 012 092) Summary: Ms Y, an advocate, complained on behalf of Ms X that the Council wrongly asked Ms X to pay a top up after she engaged a care provider with a higher hourly rate. There is no fault by the Council as there is nothing to confirm a social worker said surplus funds in the direct payment account could be used. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 014 582) Summary: Mr X complained the Council has wrongly increased Miss Y’s client contribution and refused to consider her Disability Related Expenditure. He also complained the Council made Miss Y’s Personal Assistant redundant and has not arranged suitable alternative care. We found there is no evidence of fault by the Council. Carebase (25 016 019) Summary: The care provider was at fault because its contract and terms and conditions did not explain how it would treat funded nursing care payments. The care provider has agreed to apologise to Mr X to acknowledge the confusion and uncertainty this caused and amend its contract and terms and conditions Essex County Council (25 018 499) Summary: Mr J complained the Council had wrongly assessed his finances and as a result was wrongly charging him for the cost of his care and support and transport. We have ended our investigation as the Council has now re-assessed Mr J’s finances, determined he has no contribution to make and cleared his debt. There is therefore nothing further we can achieve by investigating. Derbyshire County Council (25 024 108) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s commissioned Care Home losing her late friend’s personal belongings. This is because a further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, we cannot achieve what she wants and there is another body better placed to consider her concerns. Lincolnshire County Council (26 000 063) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council completing a financial assessment with his late father who lacked mental capacity at the time. This is because it is late and there are no good reasons why he did not complain to us sooner. 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