A weekly update on adult social care complaint decisions

Summary: The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman investigated a complaint about charging for residential care.

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his father, Mr Y, that there were failings by a care provider commissioned by the Council. We found the care provider failed to prevent Mr Y absconding from the care home, failed to follow his care plan and lost his personal belongings. In recognition of the injustice caused the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a payment to him.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Councils failure to provide appropriate care and support to her and her father Mr Y. The Council was at fault for delays in investigating safeguarding concerns, not carrying out a formal carers assessments or progressing Ms Xs request for direct payments and for delays in finding a suitable care home for Mr Y. As a result Ms X was caused significant distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, to make a payment to Ms X and to carry out service improvements to prevent a recurrence of the faults.

Summary: Mr X complained care workers visits to his mother, Mrs Y, were shorter than they should have been. We find the visits were frequently short and there were occasions Mrs Y did not receive appropriate care. This caused Mrs Y distress and Mr X distress and uncertainty. Agincare UK Limited will pay Mr X 200 in recognition of his injustice. Agincare UK Limited has reduced Mrs Ys outstanding invoice by 1000, which remedies her injustice.

Summary: The Council failed to properly consider Mrs Bs disability-related expenditure when determining how much she should contribute towards the cost of her care. It also failed to clearly explain its intentions in relation to the recovery of unpaid contributions. The Council has agreed to write-off some of the unpaid contributions and review Mrs Bs requests for items to be considered disability-related expenditure. It has also agreed to make service improvements.

Summary: There was fault by the Council. The Council did not tell a family before a one to one carer was put in place for a relative in a care home. A financial assessment then determined the relative should self fund their own care. Before the complaint was considered by the Ombudsman, the Council apologised and funded the one to one carer for an initial six weeks. This remedies the injustice to the family for the initial poor communication.

Summary: The Council failed to consider Care and Support Statutory Guidance when reviewing Ms Xs financial assessment for her care contribution. The Council will apologise and reconsider its decision not to increase her personal expenses allowance to include an amount for basic heating charges over winter.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Bs complaint about the Council placing her mother, Mrs C, in the wrong home in 2020. This is because we could not add to the Councils responses or make a different finding of the kind Mrs B wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care Mr X received. We do not consider the representative, Mr Y, to be suitable.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils safeguarding investigation into concerns raised by Mrs B. This is because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint that the Council failed to properly consider her daughters application for a blue badge. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about the Councils decision not to consider his complaint about his employer, a care provider. This is because an investigation by this office would not be able to add to the response the Council has already provided which explains this is an employment matter between Mr X and his employer and not for the Council.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to deal properly with her husbands care or respect her position as his power of attorney for property and affairs and health and welfare, putting her to significant expenses and causing significant distress which has not been fully addressed by the Councils flawed safeguarding investigation and the payments it has agreed to make to her. The Council accepts it failed to deal properly with Mr & Mrs X, causing avoidable distress. It has apologised and agreed to make payments to refund Mrs X for additional costs she incurred and to reflect the long delay in sending her its summary report on the investigation into her concerns. The Council needs to make a further symbolic payment to reflect the avoidable distress caused by its failure to deal properly with her and her husband.

Summary: Mrs Z complained a care home failed to provide appropriate personal care to her father-in-law, Mr X, as well as losing some property and failing to safeguard and follow proper financial procedures. There is no fault in respect of the personal care provided by the Care Home. Any fault in respect of failing to follow correct procedures did not result in a significant injustice to Mr X.

Summary: MsB complained about the Council and Primecares role in her fathers care in the period before he died. There was fault in the care provided by Primecare and in the complaint handling by both Primecare and the Council. Both should apologise to MsB and make a payment.

Summary: Mrs Z complained on behalf of her husband Mr Z, that the Council and Care Home wrongly accused him of mismanaging his fathers finances and wrongly reported him to the police. She says this caused distress and impacted their health. There is no fault as the Council correctly began a safeguarding investigation when concerns about finances were raised and correctly involved the police.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about managing direct payments to meet adult social care needs. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils refusal to accept Mrs C as a suitable representative for Mrs D. We do not consider Mrs C to be a suitable representative to act on behalf of Mrs D.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about deprivation of capital for adult social care charges. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xs complaint about the Councils lack of communication, support and payment for a placement at Ms Xs care home. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about the Councils decision to refuse her blue badge application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the Council has offered a reasonable resolution.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care because we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

Summary: Mrs Ds family complained that the care home where Mrs D was staying, refused to call an ambulance when Mrs D was unwell and that the care home stopped the family from visiting Mrs D in the days before her admission to hospital. They said that Mrs D had not eaten or drunk anything in the 4 days before her admission to the hospital. We have not found fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils involvement with Ms Y. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Councils actions when Ms Y had mental capacity to make her own decisions about her care and support. It is too soon to consider a complaint about the Councils actions since Ms Y has lost capacity, as it has not yet come to a decision about Ms Ys best interests.

Summary: Ms B says the Council failed to meet her assessed needs from July 2022, failed to communicate with her about the action being taken and failed to explain the Councils reasoning. The Council delayed dealing with a care review and in reviewing how Ms B was managing her direct payments and failed to write to her to explain the Councils reasoning. That likely did not affect the provision of support to meet Ms Bs care needs. An apology, payment to Ms B and agreement to write to her to outline the Councils decision is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: It was not the fault of the Council that Ms X did not contact it about her mothers funding status. The Council agreed Mrs X could stay in her current placement without the requisite top-up fee.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council looked for a new educational placement for his adult daughter, Ms Y. Mr X also complained about how the Council reviewed Ms Ys Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, about how it amended the EHC Plan and about its failure to secure the provision in Ms Ys EHC Plan. The Council was at fault. Mr X also complained about the supported living placement the Council identified for Ms Y. The Council was not at fault in how it decided the placement could meet Ms Ys needs but was at fault for moving Ms Y to the placement without a sufficiently lengthy transition or an up-to-date care and support plan. The faults caused Mr X and Ms Y significant injustice. To remedy that injustice, the Council should apologise to Mr X, pay him a total of 9500, issue Ms Ys amended EHC Plan and make improvements to its practice.

Summary: Mr X complained to the Ombudsmen about the actions of Cumberland Council and Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne & Wear NHS Foundation Trust, relating to his mental health care. We did not uphold Mr Xs complaint as we found no fault in the organisations actions.

Summary: Mrs Y complained she was overcharged for care she received at home after a hospital discharge. The Council has reconsidered the complaint and agreed to waive the disputed invoice, apologise and pay 200 to Mrs Y for her time and trouble. This is a proportionate remedy and the LGSCO would not achieve anything further. We have therefore ended our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Ys complaint that the ICB failed to pay interest when it refunded nursing home payments made by Mrs Ys mother, Ms X. Mrs Y also complained the Council and the ICBs communication about this was poor. During our consideration of the complaint, the ICB apologised, offered to pay interest to Ms X, and said it would improve services. The Council accepted shortcomings in how it handled Mrs Ys enquiries about the payment, and it addressed this by apologising and providing staff training. The Council and ICB have provided a reasonable remedy to the complaint, and an investigation would be unlikely to add anything further for MrsY.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about client contributions for adult social care. That is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay allocating Mr Y a social worker. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not replacing a bed like for like, to meet Mr Bs adult social care needs. This is because the Council has explained the reasons it will only provide a single bed, and there is not enough evidence of fault in how it made that decision. The larger bed was privately bought, and Mr B would need to do the same again.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging for care home contribution fees for three days after the resident had died. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council for the fee contribution charges.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about charges for Miss Xs fathers care. There is not good reason for the delay in bringing the matter to the Ombudsman.

Summary: The Council failed to investigate Mrs Xs concerns about the treatment of her late mother Mrs A at an early stage. As a result, it was not until nine months later that a safeguarding investigation was commenced. The Council acknowledges it delayed unnecessarily and has already taken steps to review its processes. It will also now apologise to Mrs X, and offer a sum in recognition of the way it failed both her and Mrs A.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about a meeting he attended in early 2022. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils response to a safeguarding referral. Any fault in the Councils actions did not cause the injustice Miss X claims.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Bs complaint about treatment and care provided to his late brother, Mr C, by the Trust and the Council. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would find fault.

Summary: Four Seasons Health Care and Sunderland City Council missed an opportunity to consider further support to reduce the risk of Mr Y falling. Four Seasons record keeping was not in line with the relevant guidance. It should also have considered Mr Ys welfare when residents wandered into his room. Those faults caused Mrs X an injustice which the organisations have agreed to remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils handling of an occupational therapy assessment and Disabled Facilities Grant request. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.