A weekly update on adult social care complaint decisions

Summary: Miss P complained the Care Provider mishandled her complaints and service feedback and failed to act on issues she raised. Miss P also complains the Care Provider was in breach of the contract when it served an eviction notice in response to her complaints and feedback. We have found the Care Provider acted with fault which caused Miss P injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that she was illegally detained by the Police in 2017. We have no jurisdiction to investigate the actions of the Police. We will also not investigate Ms X’s complaint that a Council officer is stalking her. This is a criminal matter and as such, falls outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: There was fault by the Council as it failed to properly consider whether a contribution towards household costs should be deducted during the financial assessment process for care costs. Carrying out a reassessment and backdating any overpayment to the family remedies the injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint from Mrs X complaining the Care Home failed to refer her late relative for a ‘fast track’ Continuing Health Care assessment promptly. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The Care Home has provided a remedy in line with our Remedies guidance, and we are unlikely to add anything more.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his late mother’s financial contributions towards her care costs. We would not achieve anything further by investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the disabled adaptations to her council home. This is because we cannot investigate a council’s actions when it is acting as in its management of social housing role.

Summary: We investigated a complaint about the section 117 aftercare provided to Ms A by the Council, the Trust and the ICB after she was detained under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983. We found no fault by any of the organisations.

Summary: The evidence shows the Council based its calculation of the late Mrs X’s personal budget on a comparison with the cost of a residential care placement, which would not have met Mrs X’s needs. This also led to a care home contacting Mrs X about an assessment which caused considerable distress. There was a delay in setting up the Direct Payments. The Council agrees to apologise for its shortcomings here and make a payment which reflects what the actual personal budget should have been.

Summary: Mr F complains about the domiciliary care his wife received from Cera Homecare Ltd, commissioned by the Council. There was fault in record-keeping but this has not caused significant injustice. There was no fault in the care provided.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council incorrectly assessed the contributions his late mother, Mrs Y, had to make towards her care which resulted in a backdated invoice and additional contributions. He also says the Council stopped paying its contribution to his mother’s Direct Payment account without telling him. Mr X says this caused him distress and to have to find a large sum of money with no prior notice. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for not advising Mr X payments would stop and recommend an apology and a financial payment.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaints. She has already appealed the decision to detain her under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act to the First Tier Tribunal (Mental Health). Also, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman is better placed to consider her complaints about transfer between hospitals and care and treatment under Section 3.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the quality of care Mr X’s late mother received in a care home. This is because it was arranged by the National Health Service not the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council delay completing mental capacity assessments because even if there was Council fault, it did not lead to a significant personal injustice that would justify us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about fee increases and care planning for privately arranged residential adult social care. This is because investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. On our ordinary reading the Care Provider has acted in line with its contract. A court would need to decide if the Care Provider has breached its contract. There is no evidence the Care Provider is not meeting the care needs of its resident.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaints. She has already appealed the decision to detain her under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act to the First Tier Tribunal (Mental Health). Also, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman is better placed to consider her complaints about transfer between hospitals and care and treatment under Section 3.

Summary: Mr X is a vulnerable young person living in a shared lives placement. Mr Z complained, on Mr X’s behalf, the Council failed to properly support Mr X and prioritise his care needs. We have found fault by the Council in: failing to properly consider whether Mr X should have an Education Health and Care needs assessment and the additional support he might need; its delays in responding to a request for respite care; and making a health referral and a benefits claim, causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising to Mr X and Mrs Z, making payments to reflect the upset caused and reporting on the impact of the delay with the benefits claim.

Summary: Mr Y’s personal care was not in line with his preferences and did not respect his dignity, particularly on the day of a video call with his relative Ms X who has complained to us. Mr Y has now died and so we will not remedy his injustice. Within one month of my final decision, the Care Provider should apologise to Ms X for her avoidable distress. Its apology should be in line with our published Guidance on Remedies.

Summary: The Council failed to provide support to Mr B with applying to charities for a carpet which he said he needed to be able to use his wheelchair upstairs and it failed to carry out a review when he said his care needs had increased. It also wrongly decided that Mr B had been overpaid direct payments and told his carer that they would not get paid, which contributed to Mr B being left without care. The Council later decided to stop paying direct payments to Mr B but failed to follow the correct process. The Council also delayed dealing with Mr B’s application for the household support fund and for a disabled facilities grant for a downstairs toilet. The Council’s failings have caused Mr B significant distress and meant that he has had difficulty accessing a toilet and moving around his home. The Council has agreed to make some payments to Mr B and to take action to prevent similar failings in future.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to deal properly with safeguarding concerns about her adult son. The Council was not at fault over its handling of the safeguarding concerns.

Summary: Ms Y complained on behalf of Mrs X about the time taken by the Council to complete adaptations to Mrs X’s home. We have found the Council at fault for delaying completing adaptations to Mrs X’s property. As a result, Mrs X has lived in her home without adaptations she needed. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise, make a financial payment to Mrs X and Ms Y and look at how it could improve its procedures around communication.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has not dealt properly with adult social care for her and her son Mr Y. The Council is at fault because it has been unable to provide the care Mr Y needs. Mrs X and Mr Y suffered missed care provision and avoidable distress. The Council should pay Mrs X and Mr Y £1,000 each.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council dealt with the disabled facilities grant works at her property. She also complained the Council initially refused and then delayed providing her family with temporary accommodation to cover the period the adaptation work was scheduled for. There were some faults by the Council in how it dealt with the temporary accommodation matter. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed in carrying out her son’s social care assessment. The Council has now agreed to carry it out within one month. We will not investigate because further investigation is unlikely to achieve anything more. We will not investigate Miss X’s other complaint that the Council refused to allow her to be her son’s personal assistant and to pay her for the care she provides him. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about the lack of information about the costs of Mrs Y’s residential care. This is because the Council paid Mrs Y’s care fees initially, and later reduced the amount due for the chargeable days by £200, which is an appropriate remedy for the uncertainty caused. We will not investigate the complaint about the care home placement because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s delayed assessment of his son’s needs when he moved from children to adult care services. Mr B also complains the assessment itself did not involve them. And the Council tried to force him to take a direct payment. The Council also delayed responding to his complaint. Our decision is there was fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to our recommendations for remedies it should make.

Summary: There was fault in how the Council dealt with assessment and care planning for Mr K who is disabled, as well as assessment and support for his mother Ms B. There was fault in how the Council dealt with direct payments, and with recruitment of personal assistants. It has failed to take action it agreed to do as part of a complaint resolution. Throughout, the Council’s communication has been very poor. The Council has caused Ms B and her family distress, uncertainty, and frustration.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to not reimburse the complainant for alleged overpayments his family made in meeting his late mother’s care needs. This is because the complaint concerns historical events since 2010 and is therefore late. The passage of time means there is no realistic prospect of us reaching a sound, fair, and meaningful decision.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about information provided by the Council to a third party used in court. This is because the matter is subject to legal proceedings. And the accuracy of the information is a matter better addressed by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: Mr X complained the Care Provider failed to provide suitable care in line with Mrs Y’s care plan and adhere to the financial spending limits it had in place for client money. We found the Care Provider failed to keep sufficient records to document the care it provided and failed to update care plans. This caused uncertainty for Mrs Y and her family. The Care Provider has agreed to apologise, make payment to recognise the uncertainty caused and take action to prevent reoccurrence.

Summary: Miss X complained about the decision of the Adult Safeguarding Board not to carry out a multi-agency review into events that took place prior to her daughter’s death. We have not found fault with how this decision was made.

Summary: Mrs E complained about the actions of a Care Provider (Elm House (UK) Ltd) when it provided care to her late father on behalf of the Council. We upheld the complaint, finding several faults in the Care Provider’s service. These included that it failed to allow Mrs E’s father back to its care home after he attended hospital following a fall. The Council was also at fault for not challenging this action, despite knowing about it. These faults caused Mrs E and her brother distress, which it has agreed to remedy. It has also agreed to make service improvements to help avoid a repeat of these faults.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms Z’s complaint about the Council reducing her care package. There is not enough evidence of fault.

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: 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: We investigated a complaint about the care provided to Mrs M and the way the Council dealt with Mr L. We found fault with the Council who failed to fully explain the financial implications of a temporary care home stay to Mr L. The Council also failed to communicate with Mr L about delays in Mrs M leaving the care home; the Council has already remedied this injustice. We recommended and the Council agreed to an apology and a symbolic payment to remedy the outstanding injustice to Mr L. We found no fault with the Trust.

Summary: There is no evidence of fault on the part of the Council in the way it arranged the late Mr X’s placement and carried out assessments of his capacity to make his own decisions about his finances.