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. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (25 000 513) Summary: Miss A complained about how Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council and NHS West Yorkshire Integrated Care Board handled her grandmother, Mrs B’s care at home. Miss A said the lack of support from both organisations led to inadequate care for Mrs B and distress for the family. We found fault with some aspects of the organisations’ handling of the situation and their agreed to our recommendations to remedy the matter. Buckinghamshire Council (25 015 842) Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s actions in deciding her husband had to move to a different care home. We have found fault in its decision-making process, which caused Ms X and Mr Y uncertainty and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and Mr Y and make a symbolic payment. North East Lincolnshire Council (25 023 377) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in reviewing Mr Y’s care because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Surrey County Council (25 023 857) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about adult safeguarding. Part of the complaint has insufficient evidence of fault by the Council; part of it has insufficient injustice to justify an investigation; and we could not add any further meaningful outcome to the remaining part. City of Doncaster Council (25 023 959) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about funding of adult social care. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and Mrs X has not suffered significant injustice. Some of the issues complained about are better dealt with by the courts. North Northamptonshire Council (25 024 692) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to place his late mother, Mrs Y, into a care home. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council and we could not add to its investigation. Lancashire County Council (26 012 443) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about non-payment of care fees. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to exercise discretion to consider it now. It would also be reasonable to expect Ms X to take the matter to court. Leicestershire County Council (26 012 522) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to provide adequate advice around funding for the care of her late husband. This is because the complaint is made late. East Sussex County Council (25 010 640) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council unfairly seeking payment of care costs. We found no fault in the Council seeking payment but there was fault in how it handled the complaint about the care costs. The Council agreed to make a symbolic payment, in addition to the apology it had already given, to address the avoidable time and trouble caused by fault in its complaint handling. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (25 010 784) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to complete a Care Act assessment following his request. The Council significantly delayed in completing the assessment. This caused Mr X distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has already apologised and decided to make a payment to remedy the injustice caused. The Council will also make service improvements. London Borough of Waltham Forest (25 011 205) Summary: We decided we cannot continue to investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because alongside our investigation, the Council has also begun investigating the matter. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 013 899) Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council reached its decision about the liability for care charges. London Borough of Merton (25 022 790) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a safeguarding adults enquiry. We would not be able to achieve significantly more by investigating and there would be no worthwhile outcome in doing so. Care UK Community Partnerships Ltd (25 024 091) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Care Provider allowing a new development to be built next to her father’s Care Home. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault with the Care Provider, there is another body better placed to consider her concerns and we cannot achieve the outcome she wants. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (26 000 485) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council providing poor care to her late mother, Mrs Y. This is because it is late and there are no good reasons why she did not complain to us sooner. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (24 020 516) Summary: We have exercised our discretion to end our investigation into Mr X’s complaint. Mr X complained the Council should have paid for his client, Mr Y’s, historic accommodation costs from 2016 onwards. Mr Y had a court appointed Deputy to oversee his property and affairs during the full period Mr X complains of. It was open for Mr Y’s Deputy at that time to complain to the Council if she considered the Council should have been paying for his accommodation or that the accommodation was unsuitable. North Somerset Council (25 014 024) Summary: Mx B complained that the Council had failed to take account of its Public Sector Equality Duty in deciding not to extend funding for a male Independent Domestic Violence Adviser. We have not found fault with the Council’s actions. London Borough of Haringey (25 015 336) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has delayed in carrying out adaptations to her home despite approving a disabled facilities grant over a year ago. We found the Council’s significant delays in carry out the works is fault. This fault has caused Mrs X difficulties, distress and uncertainty and meant she was unable to leave her home independently. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs X. It will also review its processes. City of Doncaster Council (25 018 908) Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of Mrs Y about the way the Council dealt with care charges for her mother, Mrs Z. The Council was at fault for delaying in offering a financial assessment, which caused uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise for this. London Borough of Ealing (25 023 743) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a blue badge application because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to justify our involvement. Croft Carehomes Limited (25 027 900) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Care Home providing poor care to her late mother, Mrs Y. This is because a further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and it is unlikely we would find fault with the Care Provider. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (25 010 857) Summary: Mrs F complained the Council delayed completing adaptations to her home following her application for a disabled facilities grant. We found fault which caused the adaptations to be delayed by about a year. This has caused significant distress to Mrs F who was unable to access suitable bathing and kitchen facilities independently. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment of £4,200 to Mrs F to remedy that injustice and make service improvements. Hertfordshire County Council (25 017 433) Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his mother, Mrs X, that the Council failed to properly assess her needs before it reduced her Direct Payment funded care package following a review of her care and support needs. The Council reached a reasoned professional judgement about Mrs X's eligible care and support needs. There was no fault found in the Council’s decision-making process. East Sussex County Council (25 022 654) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care charging. The complaint is late, and it was reasonable to expect Mrs X to have complained to us sooner. Wiltshire Council (25 023 224) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision making on Mr Y’s care and support. This is because the matter is the subject of court action. London Borough of Bromley (25 024 047) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a safeguarding investigation. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify investigating. Oxfordshire County Council (25 029 311) Summary: Mrs Y complained that items belonging to her late father, Mr X, were lost on the day he went into hospital from his care home. While we recognise the importance of the items to Mrs Y, we will not investigate her complaint because an investigation would be unlikely to add to the responses she has already received from the organisations. Park Homes (UK) Limited (25 029 593) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Care Home providing poor care to his mother. This is because we could not add to the Care Provider’s investigation, a further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, it is unlikely we would find fault and some personal injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation. Hertfordshire County Council (25 007 366) Summary: The Council was at fault for not ensuring Ms X received the care in her care plan after it was finalised. This meant Ms X was without care for a period of time. The Council was not at fault for how it carried out its financial assessment and how it considered Ms X’s disability related expenses. The Council agreed to apologise, make a payment for the distress caused, backdate some of Ms X’s disability related expenditure and carry out a service improvement. Netherclay House (25 021 986) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a fall Mrs Y suffered while in respite care because further investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 022 656) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision there had been a deprivation of assets when carrying out a financial assessment. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council came to its decision to justify an investigation. London Borough of Sutton (25 029 186) Summary: Mr X complained that London Borough of Sutton (the Council), NHS South West London ICB (the ICB), and South West London and St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust (the Trust) failed to cover the costs of Ms Y’s prescriptions as part of Section 117 aftercare. We have upheld Mr X’s complaint about the ICB, because the ICB has agreed to take appropriate action to resolve matters. We will not investigate the complaint about the Council and the Trust as the ICB has accepted the delay. Surrey County Council (26 010 840) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council implementing visiting arrangements in relation to visiting her friend in a care home. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council. Melrose Court Rest Home Limited (26 011 178) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about her relative’s missing jewellery while in the care home. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mrs X to go to court. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (26 011 415) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s safeguarding actions in 2025. This is because there is no significant injustice and no worthwhile outcome achievable. South Staffordshire District Council (26 011 798) Summary: We will not investigate X’s complaint about adaptations under a disabled facility grant. This is because the complaint is made late and I see no good reason why it could not have been made sooner. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (26 011 991) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a support worker at a supported living unit. This is because the complaint has been made late and there are no good reasons to investigate. PSS (UK) (26 012 118) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about this care company. This is because it is a social enterprise charity and therefore falls outside of our remit. Bath and North East Somerset Council (25 011 353) Summary: Mrs D complains about the Council’s refusal to pay her to manager her daughter’s direct payment account and for not carrying out a joint care and carer’s assessment. We do not uphold the complaint as the Council provided cogent reasons why it would not be appropriate for Mrs D to effectively pay herself, when other options are available. 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