A weekly update on adult social care complaint decisions

Summary: We found fault by a care provider with regards to its failure to properly assess Mrs K’s ability to make key decisions about her care. We also found fault by the care provider as it failed to notify Mrs K’s family when she suffered a fall and did not seek their input about what should happen next. The care provider agreed to apologise to Mrs K’s son, Mr J, and pay a financial remedy in recognition of the distress these events caused him. The care provider will also take action to prevent similar problems occurring in future.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly respond to a complaint about Mrs Y being overcharged for care. We found there was fault in the monitoring and oversight of the care charges and there was a significant delay in responding to the complaint. However, we found the Council remedied the complaint appropriately.

Summary: Ms X complains YourLife (Droitwich) failed to meet her father’s (Mr Y’s) needs when he went to live in Horton Mill Court in July 2021 and told his family he had to leave, resulting in him having to live in a care home and incurring losses selling his flat. The care provider accepts it did not deal with Mr Y and the family’s complaints properly, resulting in financial losses. It has offered to recompense them for those losses and to apologise to Ms X. The care provider’s actions have caused injustice which will be remedied by the action it has offered to take.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to deal properly with the charges for his late mother’s care. There was a long delay in completing his mother’s financial assessment. The Council apologised for not going ahead with the financial assessment in September 2021, but has not apologised in writing for the delay in rearranging it. The Council’s communications with Mr X about the charges for his mother’s care lacked clarity, which caused confusion. The Council needs to apologise to Mr X these failings. However, the Council has not charged as much as it could have done for his mother’s care, so there is no basis to ask it to waive any of the outstanding charges.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in financial assessment and delays in invoicing for adult social care. The Council accepts fault, has apologised, offered to pay £100, and offered a repayment plan for the debt if needed. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken to acknowledge the impact of its fault. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to safeguard her father from neglect in the months prior to his death. The Council has appropriately investigated and responded to her concerns. An investigation by us would be unlikely to add to the Council’s investigation or achieve anything more.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council wrongly took over the appointeeship of her late mother’s benefits. The complaint is late. Furthermore, the substantive matters have been considered by the courts and any injustice is either not significant enough or not due to the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to provide Mrs X with adaptations she needed in a timely manner. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about damage caused to her property. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. As Mrs X believes the Council is liable for the damage caused to her property, it is reasonable for her to take the Council to court.

Summary: Mr C complains the Council did not do enough to stop a care home from closing and did not make proper transition arrangements for his daughter, Ms C, into a new care home. The Council is at fault for failing to follow due process when it was aware the care home was having difficulties. It is also at fault for failing to properly manage and plan Ms C’s transition into a new care home and offer a care home that met Ms C’s needs. Because of these failures Ms C will have to move again and the Council’s actions have caused her and her family anxiety, distress, and frustration. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to make symbolic payments to Ms C and Mr C, reassess Ms C and produce a detailed support plan of the care she needs in her new home. The Council will develop a policy of actions officers should take when there is a home closure, it will also share this with relevant staff.

Summary: Miss B complains about how the Council handled adaptations to her property under a Disabled Facilities Grant. There was no fault in how the Council ensured this met her child’s needs. The Council took too long to deal with her complaint about the adaptations. This caused Miss B frustration. I cannot investigate Miss B’s complaint that the work was not supervised properly as this is the housing authority’s responsibility and this investigation is about the social care authority.

Summary: Mrs X complained about poor communication and invoicing during the period her late father, Mr Y lived at Sunnyside Care Home (the Care Home). The Care Home raised invoices appropriately and there was no fault in how it issued Mr Y’s contract or how it chased outstanding arrears. The Care Home delayed attributing an NHS payment to Mr Y’s account which covered the first three weeks, but this did not cause a significant injustice.

Summary: Mrs E complained the Council has delayed processing her daughter’s Disabled Facilities Grant application. We find the Council was at fault for its significant delays in dealing with the application. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the standard of care provided to his mother by Company A, a Council-commissioned care provider. Company A has investigated Mr X’s concerns, upheld parts of the complaint and apologised. It is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about a care provider’s actions, including alleged poor record-keeping and communication. There is not a good reason for the delay in the matter being brought to the Ombudsman.

Summary: Mrs B says the Council failed to carry out proper care planning before she entered the care home, failed to ensure the care home provided for her cultural needs, failed to put in place sufficient support, failed to carry out proper risk assessments, carried out a financial assessment which left her with an inadequate amount to live on and gave her representative wrong information about the complaints process. There is no fault in how the Council carried out care planning or in how it carried out the financial assessment. There is some evidence of the care home not following through with some of the actions in the care plan and failing to provide Mrs B with culturally appropriate meals. There is also evidence of the Council giving Mrs C wrong information. An apology, payment to Mrs C, writing off some of Mrs B’s arrears and monitoring of the care homes records is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: Ms T complained the Council failed to provide suitable adult social care support to her friend, Mr Z, after his main carer died. The Council delayed making clear best interests’ decisions, failed to decide who should take over deputyship of Mr Z’s financial and property affairs and failed to put in place bereavement support. There was no fault in how the Council assessed Mr Z’s mental capacity and it was not at fault for the placing Mr Z in residential care for three weeks, as this was appropriate action to take in urgent circumstances. The Council’s faults have caused Mr Z uncertainty and in recognition of this, the Council has agreed to apologise, pay Mr Z £600, and carry out service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council is meeting his care needs. The Council has regularly assessed his needs and recommended a suitable care package to enable him to return home. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council made adult safeguarding enquiries. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. It is reasonable for the complainant to refer their concerns about data protection to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged failure to complete a checklist for NHS funding. This is because even if there was fault, we cannot say it caused injustice because we cannot say the person receiving care services would be eligible for NHS funding. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable from an Ombudsman investigation, and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants. The complainant can make a retrospective application to the NHS for funding.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council made her a permanent resident at a care home against her will. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s mother’s death. That is because the complaint is late.

Summary: We uphold Miss Y’s complaint about her father’s hospital discharge and care. We found fault with the way Mr X was discharged from hospital, the care he received in a care home and some aspects of his hospital inpatient care. As a result, Mr X did not receive the care he was entitled to. Miss Y has also experienced distress and uncertainty. The Council and the Trust have agreed to apologise to Miss Y, and the Council has agreed to make systemic improvements and pay a financial remedy.

Summary: We uphold Miss Y’s complaint about her father’s hospital discharge and care. We found fault with the way Mr X was discharged from hospital, the care he received in a care home and some aspects of his hospital inpatient care. As a result, Mr X did not receive the care he was entitled to. Miss Y has also experienced distress and uncertainty. The Council and the Trust have agreed to apologise to Miss Y, and the Council has agreed to make systemic improvements and pay a financial remedy.

Summary: Mr F complained about the quality of homecare he received and that the care provider imposed a two-week notice period although he or his representative had not signed a contract. We found fault in record-keeping and complaint handling which has caused uncertainty and time and trouble. The care provider should waive £300 of its fees to remedy this injustice.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the failure to provide Miss C with appropriate care and support when she moved to a care home. She also complained about being unfairly treated by the care home. We have not found fault. The care home acted on advice from medical professionals and Mrs X had no legal right to be make decisions about Miss C’s care. We found no evidence of neglect as alleged by Mrs X.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council dealt with issues about a lift at the rear of his property This is his entrance to his home. Mr X said the Council has not resolved the issues and he is unable to independently leave his home because of this. There was fault by the Council. The Council has to date failed to resolve the issues with the lift. This delay has impacted on Mr X’s independence and ability to access the community. Mr X is continuing to suffer significant ongoing injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and resolve the issues Mr X faces.

Summary: Mr X complained Norwood House Care Home breached the terms of their agreement by increasing his mother, Ms Y’s, top up fee several times without proper notice or consultation and without notifying the Council. We found there was fault causing injustice when the Care Home failed to follow the correct procedure to increase fees, and when the Council failed to provide information in writing. However, we were satisfied the Council already remedied the injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his mother, Ms Y’s, care package. Mr X said the Council removed services from Ms Y’s care plan. He said the package is no longer flexible to meet her needs. Mr X said this impacted Ms Y’s health. There was fault in the way the Council delayed completing the support plan. This fault frustrated Ms Y. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and remind staff of the importance of promptly reviewing and issuing support plans.

Summary: The Council was at fault for a delay in finalising Mr B’s financial support. Its social care panel took several months to consider his case, and this caused him a financial injustice, because he continued paying the full cost of his own care for longer than he needed to. The Council’s handling of Mr B’s case also likely caused his son a great deal of uncertainty. It has agreed to make separate remedy payments to Mr B’s estate and to his son, and will set out how it intends to improve its service.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care in a residential care home. The Care Provider has accepted failings in communication and record keeping, has apologised, and has spoken with staff to improve service. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would add to this or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council funded her father, Mr Y’s, mental health aftercare. There was some fault in how the Council made its decision not to backdate Mr Y’s personal budget in 2022, but this did not affect the outcome. However, the Council also failed to take into account that it was previously paying higher costs which meant that Mr Y’s wife, Mrs Y, paid too much towards his care home fees. The Council agreed to apologise and refund the difference to Mrs Y.

Summary: The Ombudsmen find fault with the Council for its repairs handling, delay adapting Mr Y’s bathroom, delay in dealing with the complaint Miss X made on his behalf, and for poor communication with Mr Y and Miss X throughout. The Council has agreed to apologise, make payments to Mr Y and Miss X, and act to improve its services.

Summary: Ms X, complains the Council failed to put the support she needed in place when she moved to Hackney in 2022 and, despite accepting its failings, it has failed to resolve them leaving her out-of-pocket. The Council accepts it did not deal with Ms X’s transfer to its area and that this left her paying for care it should have provided. It has offered to pay her £1,668 for the care it did not provide between 13 November 2022 and 5 January 2023. The Council’s offer does not go far enough to remedy the injustice to Ms X. It also needs to pay her for the care it should have provided in October 2022 and the additional care she paid for between January and June 2023.

Summary: Ms X complained about issues with the service and care provided by Avery Homes Limited. We find Avery Homes Limited at fault for providing insufficient care which caused distress to Ms X and her family. Avery Homes Limited has apologised to Ms X, refunded care homes fees and made a payment to recognise injustice.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council deal with a review of her daughter’s care and how it responded to her complaint about the matter. She also complained the Council failed to provide respite support and paid Direct Payments at the wrong rate for a number of years. We found there was fault by the Council. This was compounded by failings in the way it responded to Mrs X. The Council took some action to address the impact. We recommended the Council provided a written apology, made a distress payment and reimbursed her solicitors fees.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council failed to take sufficient steps to identify her as her mother’s next of kin and failed to take care of her mother’s possessions when it cleared her house. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: The Council acknowledged delay in allocating Mr Y a named social worker. It also failed to correctly fund Mr Y’s residential respite stay and during the period of the 12-week disregard.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about inadequate hospice care treatment and alleged failings during a Council safeguarding process. This is because we cannot investigate where the Council is not responsible for actions complained about. Further, the matters we could investigate have been brought to us late and there are no good reasons why we should exercise our discretion and investigate now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue a blue badge. There is not enough evidence of faut to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the support provided by the Council’s supported living placement. This is because we could not add to the previous investigation completed by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a safeguarding concern raised in 2022. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to consider now.