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. Hertfordshire County Council (25 009 987) Summary: Ms X complains on behalf of her mother, Mrs Y, the Council failed to provide adequate care for her mother in her Council funded care home placement at The Lodge Care Home from January 2025 to February 2025. Ms X says this caused her and her family distress. We have found fault in the actions of the Council funded care provider for failing to complete hourly checks on Mrs Y in accordance with her care plan. The Council has agreed to write to Ms X to issue an apology, pay a symbolic payment and complete a service improvement. Cheshire East Council (25 012 774) Summary: There was fault by the Council for the time taken to process Ms X’s direct payment application. This meant Ms X had to wait longer than she should have to start to receive the payments. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X to recognise the distress caused by the delay. Halton Borough Council (25 014 630) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint that the Council removed them as next of kin from their late friend, Mr Y’s record. It took Mrs X 17 months to complain to us. This is late and there are no good reasons to consider the matter now. London Borough of Hounslow (25 015 782) Summary: There was fault by the Council. It took too long to complete financial assessments so that Miss X was not clear how much her mother would need to pay towards her care charges before the care started. It did not give information or advice to Miss X about the process or the charges, and did not fully respond to her complaint about this. This caused Miss X distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council will apologise to Miss X, make a symbolic payment to recognise the impact on her, and remind staff that the care and support plan should include information about the financial assessment and a person’s contribution to their care charges. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (25 016 441) Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it considered Ms X’s reasonable adjustments or how it carried out a safeguarding enquiry into her concerns of domestic abuse. DSL Care Ltd (25 016 474) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the standard of care delivered by a Care Provider to her mother, Mrs Y, before she passed away. We have no jurisdiction to establish cause of death so cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (25 018 232) Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to respond to her complaint. This is because the Council issued an appropriate complaint response after Ms X brought her complaint to our attention. Liverpool City Council (25 023 093) Summary: We have upheld Mr Y’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his late relative's, Mrs X’s, care charges. The Council has agreed to waive some of the care charges. This provides a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (25 027 355) Summary: Ms C complains the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and NHS North East London ICB failed to pay her daughter’s, Ms D’s housing costs despite her eligibility under section 117 Mental Health Act 1983. Ms C also complains they failed to respond to her complaints properly. The Council is at fault for failing to pay Ms D’s housing costs. This caused her avoidable stress and inconvenience. To remedy the complaint the Council will make a symbolic payment and service improvements. The Grange Care Centre (Cheltenham) Limited (26 011 699) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a loss of personal property while Mrs X was resident with the Care Provider. The Police are a more appropriate body to investigate these concerns, and we cannot achieve what the complainant is looking for in any case. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (25 013 250) Summary: We have ended our investigation into Mr X’s complaint that the Council delayed assessing Mr Y’s need for social care and issuing a care and support plan for him. This is because investigation would not result in a meaningful outcome. We will not consider the other issues Mr X complained about because either any fault did not cause a significant injustice or he has not yet complained to the Council. Trafford Council (25 013 429) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to complete a Care Act assessment for her son in a timely manner. Mrs X also complained the Council failed to provide adequate communication and/or updates regarding the assessment process. She says the Council’s actions contributed to a significant deterioration in her son’s mental health as well as negatively impacting her own mental and physical health. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to provide an apology and a financial remedy, review its care and support plan for Mrs X’s son and provide evidence of the service improvements it has made. Sheffield City Council (25 016 690) Summary: Ms X complained the Council reduced her care package without her involvement following a review of her care and support needs. She says the reduced level of care did not meet her needs and caused her distress. We found no fault by the Council. Hertfordshire County Council (25 022 228) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a care home not taking a urine sample from her mother, Mrs Y, prior to her operation. This is because an investigation would not achieve a worthwhile outcome. London Borough of Haringey (25 022 315) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to investigate a complaint. This is because the injustice caused by poor complaints handling is not significant enough to warrant investigation. Nottingham City Council (25 023 646) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council agreed to a payment plan to cover debts owed in care home fees and has now commenced legal action. It would be reasonable for the issues the complainant has raised to be mentioned as part of legal proceedings. London Borough of Lewisham (25 023 715) Summary: We upheld Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his Care Act Assessment. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by paying Mr X a symbolic payment to acknowledge the injustice caused. London Borough of Lambeth (25 024 325) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about events relating to Ms X’s relative. The complaint is late. Liverpool City Council (25 025 445) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the funding of Mrs X’s care because she is now deceased so we could not provide her with a remedy for any injustice caused by fault which might be uncovered during an investigation. Plymouth City Council (26 011 079) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council restricting X’s contact with a relative. X has sought a remedy by applying to court and so the law says we cannot investigate. London Borough of Lambeth (26 011 484) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a Freedom of Information request. This is because the Information Commissioner is better placed to look at complaints about a person’s information rights. London Borough of Newham (25 017 520) Summary: Miss X complained the Council’s 2024 review of her care and support plan did not properly consider her medical conditions, care needs and personal circumstances. She said the Council decided to reduce her care package before carrying out a proper assessment. We found no fault in the Council’s review process or its consideration of her objections. Hertfordshire County Council (25 023 911) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision his mother deprived herself of assets to avoid paying care home fees. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making to warrant us investigating. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an allegation of fraud; this is because an investigation by the Ombudsman could not add any further meaningful outcome. London Borough of Ealing (25 026 067) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to his mental health facility admission. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council and we cannot achieve the outcome he wants. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (26 002 268) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s Social Worker carrying out an unannounced visit. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council and we could not add to its previous investigation. Lancashire County Council (25 012 337) Summary: Miss X complained the Council wrongly decided to consider the funds raised by her property sale in its financial assessment. Miss X also complained the Council provided her with poor quality care. She said this caused significantly impacted her health and caused her financial strain. We find no fault with the Council’s decision making regarding the financial assessment. We do find fault with the care provided by the Council which caused Miss X some injustice. The Council has agreed to take service improvement action to remedy the injustice caused. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (25 013 860) Summary: Mr X complained the Council has failed to make appropriate reasonable adjustments to enable him to renew his blue badge. And that it failed to communicate with him in line with agreed reasonable adjustments. We found the Council’s failure to properly consider Mr X’s request for reasonable adjustments regarding his blue badge renewal is fault. As is the Council’s failure to ensure its records were correct and up to date. These faults have caused Mr X unnecessary difficulties, distress and frustration. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Mr X. It will also work with Mr X to verify his identity and update its records. Cornwall Council (25 015 311) Summary: I find fault with the Council for failing to carry out timely reviews of Mr Y’s financial assessment. However, the Council has already remedied this injustice. I find no fault by the Council in applying its policy for disability related expenditure. London Borough of Sutton (25 022 938) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about adult safeguarding. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council ended its safeguarding involvement. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (25 024 779) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaints about domiciliary care provided to her relatives, Mr and Mrs Y. The injustice is not significant enough to justify us investigating. Durham County Council (25 029 217) Summary: The Council was not at fault in the emergency support it provided to Miss X. It was at fault in its review of her care needs: the care and support plan contained confusing wording which suggested the Council needed to consider her health needs before it could consider increasing her care hours. The Council’s fault caused Miss X uncertainty over the level of care the Council should provide to her. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X. Cornwall Council (26 010 673) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care fee contributions. This is because it is made late and I see no good reason to exercise discretion and consider it now. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (26 010 961) Summary: We will not investigate X’s complaint that the Council failed to safeguard their sister. This is because the complaint is made late and I see no good reason to investigate it now. West Northamptonshire Council (25 023 922) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s financial assessment for adult social care charges and its decision to recover outstanding charges. This is because we could not achieve a worthwhile outcome for Mrs X and we would not normally recommend a symbolic remedy for a deceased person’s estate. Plymouth City Council (25 025 211) Summary: Mrs A complains about the care the Council and the Trust provided to her late mother and father. Most of the events date between 2023 and 2024. We will not investigate these complaints because they are late and it is unlikely we could achieve anything more. Sheffield City Council (25 022 318) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council investigated his complaints, agreed a communication plan and reviewed his care and support needs. Any injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement. 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