A weekly update on adult social care complaint decisions

Summary: Ms C complains the Council arbitrarily reduced and calculated her brother’s, Mr A’s, care hours which caused added stress to her father who is his main carer. The Council is at fault for failing to properly assess, communicate and provide an avenue for challenging care assessments. This has caused Ms C and her family distress, anxiety and time and trouble. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to remind staff about completing assessments in line with the Care Act and about communicating decisions. It will pay symbolic payments to Mr A, Ms C, and their father for the injustice the faults caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of an adult social care referral for her father. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: There is no fault by the Council. The Council was waiting for information which meant the financial assessment took longer than it should have. The Council did include a Personal Expenses Allowance in the financial assessment.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the quality of standards and care provided by the Care Provider to her aunt and after continuing to raise issues, it gave notice for her aunt to leave. We did not find significant concerns with the overall care provided. We found the actions of the Care Provider caused injustice to Mrs X and her aunt with how it gave notice. The Care Provider has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the personal injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to manage Miss Y’s daughter Miss X’s finances. This is because the complaint relates to events that took place more than 12 months ago; it would have been reasonable for Miss Y to bring the complaint to us at the time.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council declining to send a statement of Mr Y’s finances. It has now proposed to provide this to Mr Y. There is nothing further we could achieve, and the Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to deal with concerns about how organisations handle people’s data.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care because it is unlikely we could add to the detailed responses already given by the Care Provider, or that an Ombudsman investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial assessment for adult social care charges, and the Council’s decision about a deprivation of asset. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision-making process or reach a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs C’s complaint about the Council’s processes regarding her son’s, Mr D’s, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) assessments. This is because further investigation could not provide Mrs C with a different outcome to that she has received from the Council’s investigation into her complaints or make a different finding.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms C’s complaint about the Council’s failure to assess Mr B’s finances and discuss his funding status with him or her, his daughter. This is because the Council has acknowledged the delay in completing Mr B’s financial assessment and cancelled the charges. We are satisfied this remedies the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care at the end of life. The Care Provider failed to treat its resident with dignity and respect following death. The Care Provider has taken action to improve service and apologised to the family for their distress pursuing a complaint. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council’s decision to move Mr Y to emergency accommodation in 2022. There is not a good reason for the delay in the matter being brought to our attention.

Summary: The care provider was entitled to charge its self-funding rate once the council ceased its arrangements for the contract. The care provider staff believed they were acting in Mr X’s best interests in reporting concerns about a potential change of will. Mr and Mrs Z complained about poor communication but there is no evidence of a poor standard of care.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council mishandled payment arrangements for her mother, Mrs Y’s, care at a care home. We discontinued our investigation. That was because the Council provided a suitable remedy for the injustice. We could not add to the Council’s investigation, and were unlikely to achieve a different outcome.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council had not completed its Occupational Therapy assessment after his request for an extra toilet in 2022. He said this impacted his family’s health. There was fault in the way the Council did not complete the assessment within a reasonable timescale. The delay frustrated Mr X and he spent time with the uncertainty of not having a response to his application. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a financial payment.

Summary: Mrs F complained about the way the Council dealt with her request for a disabled facilities grant. We found fault in the way the OT service dealt with the DFG referral in 2022. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the distress and time and trouble this caused.

Summary: Ms X and Ms Y complained about how the Council dealt with their disabled facilities grant application. There were faults by the Council for its delays with their disabled facilities grant application and for its poor communication with them. This caused injustice to Ms X and Ms Y. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: The complainant (Mr X) said The Bishops Care Home Limited failed to refund a deposit and overpaid fees due to his late mother’s (Mrs Y) estate. We found the failure to pay back the deposit and fees as well as inadequate complaint-handling was detrimental to Mrs Y’s estate and caused injustice to Mr X. The Bishops Care Home Limited has agreed to apologise, refund the money due with interest and make a symbolic payment to recognise Mr X’s time and trouble. It also agreed to review its refund and complaint-handling processes.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Miss X’s mental capacity and its decision to authorise a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The Council is reviewing the assessment and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome. If Miss X remains unhappy following the review, she can challenge it in the Court of Protection.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant does not qualify for a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about defamation of character. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, nor could we achieve the outcome requested.

Summary: Mrs X’s representative complained about the cancellation of a cleaner; failure to find a new personal assistant; failure to consider a requested reasonable adjustment and failure to refund her client contribution. She says this has caused stress, anxiety and worsened her health conditions. There is no evidence of fault causing a significant enough injustice to warrant further investigation.

Summary: The Council failed to properly respond to Ms X’s concerns about the care her sister received from a care agency acting on behalf of the Council. This led to a prolonged period of short care visits and significant frustration for Ms X. The Council also failed to deal with Ms X’s concerns about overcharging for care services. The Council has implemented widespread changes in response to this complaint.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to respond to many of her emails; failed to tell her about extra charges for additional carers and failed to consider her late father’s private care provision during its financial assessment. We find the Council was at fault for delay in responding to Mrs X’s emails. This caused her significant distress, and she spent unnecessary time and trouble in contacting the Council. The Council has agreed to make several recommendations to address this injustice caused by fault.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council reduced care and support hours for her adult son, Mr Y, without any reassessment of his needs or a review of his care and support plan when he went into supported living accommodation. The Council was at fault which caused Ms X and Mr Y distress and uncertainty. The Council will apologise and pay Ms X and Mr Y a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Care Provider’s failure to refund her grandmother’s care home fees following her death. It lies outside our jurisdiction because Mrs X has started court action about the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care and the associated charges. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation. The Council assessed the person using the service had capacity to decide about their care and told them they would need to pay the full cost. The Council only charged for the care following assessment. There is nothing to suggest the person using the service did not need or want the care. The disputed debt due from the estate would be best decided by a court.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about Mrs X’s 1997 request to relocate her family member to a care home nearer her home. There is no good reason Mrs X did not complain sooner.

Summary: Mr Y complains about the care provider’s decision to impose an additional charge for care provided over a baseline limit of 25 hours per week. The contract signed by Mrs X did not refer to any baseline limits. Furthermore, there is no record of a review of Mrs X’s care needs which evidenced an increase in her care needs or quantified the amount of care she needed. There is fault in the actions of the care provider which caused injustice to Mrs X and other residents who have received additional charges for care provided over the limit imposed in April 2023. The care provider should implement the remedy we have recommended at the end of this statement.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed in providing replacement equipment for his son Mr G’s specialist bed, and delayed in completing adaptations in the bathroom of their house agreed under a disabled facilities grant. The Council delayed in completing the adaptations, and in providing the replacement equipment. The Council will make a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice caused to Mr G and Mr X, and complete the outstanding adaptations.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about Mr Y’s care and the way his carers communicated with him. The Council responded to Mrs X’s concerns and proposed a suitable alternative There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the actions of two of the Care Provider’s employees outside of their employment. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is not made about actions that involve, or are connected to, the provision of adult social care.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the recommendation of an Occupational Therapy assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to remove transport funding from her relative, Mr Y’s, personal budget. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about missing adult social care records. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider breaches of personal data. The Care Provider has apologised for its failure and is improving service by moving to digital records. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would lead to a different outcome. The Care Quality Commission can consider if the Care Provider has breached its fundamental standards on record keeping.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr C complains the Council failed to provide support it had promised and delayed increasing a direct payment. The Council is at fault for delays in sending Mr C a support plan and paying his direct payment. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr C, make him a symbolic payment, and repay his additional care costs while he waited for his direct payment. The Council will also remind staff to send support plans in a timely manner and review how it manages direct payments to prevent future delay.

Summary: Mrs X complains on behalf of her late mother Mrs Y, that the Council failed to tell her the outcome of a safeguarding review. Mrs X also says the Council failed to administer her mother’s medication which led to her going into hospital and damage to her property. Mrs X says this caused both her and her mother extreme distress. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for not confirming the outcome of the safeguarding review and for failing to ensure that Mrs Y’s medication was administered correctly. We recommend the Council apologises to Mrs X, pay her a financial remedy and implement a service improvement.

Summary: We will not investigate a complaint about a move of care home following a change to continuing healthcare funding. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. It is too early for us to consider a complaint about a continuing healthcare decision because it has not been through the relevant appeals process.