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 (25 007 481) Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about Council failings in respect of direct payments, care assessments and financial assessments. The Council failed to respond to requests for information about direct payments and for new care assessments for several years causing distress and financial hardship. While some action has been taken including a new care assessment and reimbursement of overpaid contributions to Mrs X, there are outstanding issues in respect of Mr X’s holiday pay, hourly pay rate and annual audits. A remedy including payments for backdated pay and distress as well as service improvements is agreed. London Borough of Ealing (25 013 715) Summary: We found no fault in the way the Council reached its decisions about Mr Y’s care placement on discharge from hospital, whether he needed a psychological evaluation or whether a social worker properly considered whether Mr Y met the criteria for fast-track Continuing Health Care (CHC). Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 015 082) Summary: Minster Care Group, acting on the Council’s behalf was at fault for failing to protect Mr Y’s dignity, respect and privacy following an incident in which he fell and injured himself. It caused Mr Y’s son, Mr X, distress. It was not at fault for the way it considered Mr Y’s risk assessment or for its complaint response. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X. Medway Council (25 021 859) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council has communicated with him about the cost of his mother’s care, and other matters about her care. Mr X has not suffered significant injustice and the Council has already provided a suitable remedy. Nottinghamshire County Council (25 025 299) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council refusing to consider his complaint about a safeguarding matter and not sharing information with him. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council. London Borough of Haringey (25 025 415) Summary: We will not investigate the Council’s complaints handling. This is because Ms X took the Council to court, so we have no remit to investigate any connected matters. Essex County Council (25 026 259) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the handling of Mr X’s Blue Badge renewal application because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation. Peterborough City Council (25 028 480) 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. Manuella Care Limited (26 013 546) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about care provision. This is because we can only consider complaints about care provision from the person receiving the care or a person making a complaint on their behalf. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (25 028 211) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a financial assessment as there is insufficient outstanding injustice arising from any fault. Additionally, Mrs X can make an appeal to the Council about what disability related expenses it has allowed. London Borough of Croydon (25 028 462) 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. Nottinghamshire County Council (26 001 233) 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. Buckinghamshire Council (26 004 943) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the removal of a passport. The passport was removed from Mr X by court order. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happened in court. Norfolk County Council (25 017 372) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to take action to ensure it met her assessed eligible needs after she explained she was unable to use direct payments. It also failed to complete a reassessment of needs as offered in September 2025 in response to a complaint. The Council accepts it failed to complete a reassessment after cancelling the direct payments and then delayed completing this reassessment, causing uncertainty and distress. The Council proposed a suitable remedy after accepting fault in response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries which includes a symbolic payment, a reassessment and service improvements. Surrey County Council (25 024 239) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council failing to provide care and support in line with his mother’s needs and removing some of her care records. This is because part of it is late, we could not add to the previous investigation and it is unlikely we would find fault. Medway Council (25 024 948) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care charges. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise our discretion to investigate. London Borough of Wandsworth (25 005 281) Summary: Mrs D complained about NHS South West London Integrated Care Board’s (the ICB’s) and London Borough of Wandsworth Council’s (the Council’s) response to her son’s, J’s, deteriorating mental health before and after he was detained under the Mental Health Act. We find fault that the ICB did not attempt to arrange a Care and Treatment Review earlier. And we also find fault that the ICB and the Council failed to fully assess J’s needs before deciding which elements of support they were responsible for providing. These faults caused Mrs D stress and frustration and left her with uncertainty about whether J missed out on opportunities to benefit from different support. The ICB and the Council have agreed to actions to address the injustice. Park View Care Home (Ipswich) Limited (25 016 423) Summary: Based on the evidence seen so far, we propose to end our investigation into Mrs X's complaint about the care her mother received. While there is evidence of fault in the care provider's assessment, care planning and monitoring, the provider has already offered a remedy which appropriately addresses the injustice caused. Further investigation is unlikely to achieve a more meaningful outcome. Gloucestershire County Council (25 021 812) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to disregard a property from its financial assessment to calculate charges for care. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating. Sheffield City Council (25 031 200) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council deciding a person deprived themselves of capital by creating a trust settlement of their property, assessing their finances as if they still owned the property, and therefore deciding the person should pay for their care in full. Without evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the matter we cannot question the decisions it reached, so any dispute about the resulting decision is properly a matter for a court of law, not the Ombudsman. Central Bedfordshire Council (26 012 918) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s Blue Badge application because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (24 017 285) Summary: The Council was at fault for how it charged Mr X for his care. The Council took appropriate action when it recognised errors in its invoicing, however, was at fault for raising Mr X’s expectations around a review of his financial assessment. The Council has agreed to apologise for the injustice caused. There is no evidence of fault in how it made reasonable adjustments to meet Mr X’s needs for using its service. Southampton City Council (25 014 912) Summary: There was fault in the way the Council initially assessed and recorded Miss X’s child Y’s needs for a toilet adaptation which caused an avoidable delay. There was also fault in the Council’s initial communication with Miss X. The Council made its subsequent decision to approve only one adaptation without fault. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to Miss X to recognise the frustration and uncertainty the faults caused Y and Miss X. Plymouth City Council (25 018 179) Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of Mrs Y that the Council has not dealt with adult social care properly because it has not calculated charges for Mrs Y correctly, causing financial loss. The Council did not calculate charges correctly. Mrs Y’s estate suffered financial loss. The Council should apologise and recalculate Mrs Y’s care costs. London Borough of Bromley (25 024 656) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because it is late and there are no good reasons why she did not complain to us sooner. Warwickshire County Council (26 001 686) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a work placement arranged via the Council because we could not add to the Council’s previous investigation and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (25 012 499) Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her husband, Mr X, the Council delayed providing home adaptations and implementing his agreed care and support, leaving him without appropriate support and increasing his reliance on his family. There was fault causing injustice. The Council's delays caused avoidable distress, loss of independence and dignity, increased reliance on family members, and prolonged exposure to a risk of harm. The Council agreed recommended actions to remedy the injustice caused. Promedica24 (Lancashire) Limited (25 015 202) Summary: We find fault with the care provider, Promedica24. Its care worker did not follow the correct procedures when Mr W expressed an intention to take his own life. Although Mr W has since died and we cannot therefore remedy any injustice to him, these failings caused avoidable distress to his daughter for which the care provider will apologise and complete service improvements. Liverpool City Council (25 015 619) Summary: There was fault in the way the care home provided care to Mr B which meant Mr B suffered neglect in the last days of his life. This also caused- significant distress to Mrs B. There was also fault in the Council’s communication of its conclusion of the safeguarding enquiry adding to Mrs B’s distress. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a symbolic financial remedy. The Home has been rated as inadequate by the CQC and I will share this decision with the CQC. Reading Borough Council (25 016 228) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to recognise his role as an unpaid carer and did not provide a carer’s assessment or support. We cannot investigate this complaint as Mr X has sought a remedy by proceedings in court. Essex County Council (25 016 722) Summary: Ms X complained the Council wrongly refused to treat the costs associated with her assistance dog as Disability Related Expenditure. The Council failed to properly consider her request. This was fault and caused Ms X uncertainty, frustration and time and trouble. The Council agreed recommended actions to remedy the injustice caused. London Borough of Brent (25 021 300) Summary: We will not investigate how the Council handled Mr X’s complaints about his local Healthwatch organisation. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. Kent County Council (25 022 404) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s charges for his father, Mr Y’s, care. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. North Yorkshire Council (25 028 522) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council failing to investigate safeguarding concerns she raised in relation to her adult children. This is because we do not consider Miss X as an appropriate representative and we cannot achieve the outcome she wants. Milton Keynes Council (26 007 260) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a Council commissioned care provider, resulting in Miss M receiving an injury. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to consider it now. London Borough of Ealing (26 009 625) 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. Westminster City Council (26 012 738) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint alleging Council failings when dealing with his social care needs in 2018 and 2022. This is because the complaint is late and there are insufficient grounds for us to investigate. 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