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. Cornwall Council (25 016 578) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s financial assessment of Mr X’s disability related expenditure. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions. London Borough of Sutton (25 016 688) Summary: There was fault by the Council. It took too long to review Mr K’s care needs and his financial assessment when he moved to supported living. It has also failed to properly consider whether the additional cost to Mr K of social activities to meet his care needs, are disability related expenditure for the purposes of calculating how much he should pay towards his care. Mr K has not missed out on care provision, but he and his mother have been left uncertain as to whether his contribution has been properly calculated. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr K’s mother, make a symbolic payment and complete a new financial assessment. London Borough of Ealing (25 024 121) Summary: We upheld Miss X’s complaint about delay in completing a financial assessment for her mothers’ care costs. The Council has agreed to take suitable action to remedy the matter. London Borough of Hillingdon (26 000 635) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s Blue Badge application because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to justify an investigation. Leicester City Council (26 001 572) Leicester City Council (26 001 572) North Northamptonshire Council (25 011 802) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council wrongly decided her mother had intentionally deprived herself of capital through gifts to family to avoid paying for care. We found fault in how the Council considered this, which caused doubt about the outcome of its decision making. The Council agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy to Mrs X and her mother for distress, and reconsider its decision. It will also deliver training to its staff about deprivation of assets. Somerset Council (25 014 487) Summary: Mx F complained about the Council’s handling of their care and support. This included its decisions to reduce the care package, support received from carers, delays in the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) process, and discrimination. We did not find fault by the Council on the substantial parts of the complaint. It was at fault for causing delays in the DFG process and failed to respond to some parts of their complaint. This caused Mx F some distress and uncertainty for which the Council agreed to apologise. Some parts of the complaint had been part of a court process and was therefore not investigated. Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (25 018 385) Summary: We have ended our investigation into Mr X’s complaint about the respite care provided to his father Mr Y. The care provider has investigated Mr X’s concerns, accepted gaps in its recording of the care Mr Y received, apologised to Mr X and taken appropriate action. It is unlikely further investigation of the same issues would lead to a different outcome for Mr X. Connaught Care (Huntingdon) Ltd (25 024 363) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the standard of care in a care home. We could not add to the investigations already carried out, nor could we achieve a more meaningful outcome. Cheshire East Council (25 014 512) Summary: The Council was at fault in how it arranged for Ms Y to defer paying for her care so she did not need to sell her home. This caused her son, Mr X, avoidable frustration but did not impact Ms Y as the faults did not mean she had to sell her home. Ms Y was ultimately charged the correct amount for her care. The Council will apologise to Mr X and take action to prevent fault in future. Royal Borough of Greenwich (25 015 761) Summary: . Mrs X complained about the failure of a Council funded provider to keep her daughter, Miss Y, safe when she moved to another room. We found fault with the provider’s risk assessment and some record keeping. This caused distress and uncertainty as to whether Y was safe and protected from harm. To remedy this injustice, the Council agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and work with the provider to improve its standards. We did not find fault with how the Council made its decision about the amount of night care for Miss Y. Nottinghamshire County Council (25 016 721) Summary: The Council was at fault in how it decided Mrs Y had deprived herself of an asset to avoid paying for her care. This caused Mrs Y’s representative, Mrs X, avoidable frustration and uncertainty. The Council will reconsider its decision. It will also issue a reminder for staff to ensure they consider both parts of the test for deciding if a person has deprived themselves of assets, as set out in the care and support statutory guidance. Anchor Care Homes LTD (26 005 810) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about Ms Y’s care. If we were to investigate it is unlikely we would add to the Care Provider’s investigation or reach a different outcome. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Care Provider had regard to its duties under the Equality Act. Lincolnshire County Council (24 016 490) Summary: There was no fault in how the Council considered safeguarding concerns raised by Mrs Z about the care and support provided to Miss X between 2024 and 2025. Slough Borough Council (25 022 240) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled a safeguarding alert Ms X raised about herself. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council failed to appoint a specialist advocate because she has started legal proceedings. Essex County Council (25 025 550) 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. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (25 031 556) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s Blue Badge application because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to justify an investigation. We cannot decide whether an organisation has breached the Equality Act 2010, as this can only be determined by the courts. Cheshire East Council (26 001 067) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the content of a Safeguarding Adults Report. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason Mrs X did not complain to us sooner. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (26 015 061) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the content of a Safeguarding Adults Report. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason Mrs X did not complain to us sooner. London Borough of Hillingdon (25 009 548) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council handled two safeguarding enquiries. There is either not enough evidence of fault or significant injustice to warrant an investigation, or we could not achieve anything meaningful. Surrey County Council (25 011 300) Summary: We found there was fault in the way the Council’s Adult Social Care Team considered Y’s need for a residential or supported living placement. We found the errors and delays caused Y to miss out on five weeks of education and caused frustration and distress. We recommended a payment, an apology and review of procedures and training. Lincolnshire County Council (25 024 238) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the accuracy of Miss X’s needs assessment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. London Borough of Hounslow (25 024 945) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to change his social worker and how it managed the transition. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council. West Sussex County Council (25 022 845) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care home costs. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons why the complainant could not have complained 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