A weekly update on adult social care complaint decisions

Summary: The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman investigated a complaint about Coulson & Collins Care Home Ltd. We found the care provider did not correctly record and refund an overpayment for the complainant’s late father’s care, incorrectly charged an administration fee, and delayed responding to her. It means her father’s estate is at a financial loss and she has been caused uncertainty and distress, as well as the frustration of having to complain to us.

Summary: There is no fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Mr X’s request for a reassessment of needs.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. The person using the service, who is the person most affected, has died and so we can provide no remedy for any impact on them caused by fault of the Council, or care provider on its behalf. The Council has considered and responded to the complaint issues through its safeguarding, quality monitoring and complaints processes. It has apologised to the family for the impact on them and acted to improve future service. It is unlikely we could add to this or achieve anything further.

Summary: Mr X complains about how the Council handled an application for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DGF) for home adaptations for his son, Y. We have concluded our investigation having not made a finding of fault. The evidence demonstrates the Council followed the correct process when assessing Mr X’s application for a DFG. An Occupational Therapist visited Mr X’s home to conduct an assessment on two occasions and reached a professional judgment regarding the adaptations required which were completed. It is not for our service to intervene to offer a different view, nor can we criticise decisions made properly.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to charge her mother, Mrs Y, for her care and support, after first saying there would be nothing to pay. We did not find the Council said Mrs Y would not have to pay for her care and support. However, we found the Council was at fault for not providing clear charging information in writing at the start, and for significant delays completing a financial assessment. But we found no fault in the way the Council completed Mrs Y’s financial assessment.

Summary: Miss X complains there were failings in the way the Council carried out an assessment of Miss Y’s eligible care needs and provided her with Direct Payments to pay her carer Mr Z causing distress and financial difficulties. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. So, we have completed our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council failed to provide a copy of the care assessments it completed for her mother. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the care assessment the Council completed for her daughter and that the Council has refused to provide the care and support her daughter needs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to keep him informed about his mother’s health, giving the keys to his mother’s property to another council without telling him, and taking away the opportunity for him to say goodbye to his mother. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that a charity is not providing her with her requested reasonable adjustments and about its easy read complaints policy. This is because the actions complained about are not the administrative function of a council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a person’s adult social care needs. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council completed its assessments to justify the Ombudsman investigating.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council has failed to meet all her needs for care and support. The Council’s records containing conflicting information about how it has been meeting Ms X’s needs. It has also failed to engage with other agencies which have contacted it on Ms X’s behalf. The Council needs to apologise to Ms X, make a symbolic payment, reassess her needs and update her care and support plan.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial assessment for adult social care. There is not enough evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to justify the Ombudsman investigating. The Council completed the financial assessment in accordance with its policy, law, and guidance. The Council gave unclear information to the complainant, for which it has apologised.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a care home. That is because we could not add to the investigation completed by the Care Home, nor can we achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

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 this complaint about the Council's decision not to issue a Blue Badge. This is because the Council is considering a new application and there is nothing more we could achieve at this stage. It has also recommended service improvements.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s actions when she wanted to apply for a Disabled Facilities Grant for her parents, Mr and Mrs Y. She also complained that the Council took too long to make payments when it had agreed to fund construction works. We found fault because the Council gave Miss X incorrect advice and closed Mrs Y’s case when it should not have done. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and Mrs Y, make payments to them and review some of its policies and procedures.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs C’s complaint about delay in calculating her father’s, Mr D’s care costs, or the way the Council communicated with her. This is because further investigation by us could not add to the Council’s responses. We are satisfied with the actions taken by the Council regarding the failings and could achieve no more.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care provided by a Care Home. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failures in adult social care support when Ms C left hospital. The complainant has known about the issues for more than twelve months, and there is no good reason she could not have complained to the Ombudsman sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the standard of respite care and support Mrs E received. This is because further investigation could not add to the Care Provider’s response or make a different finding of the kind Mrs C wants. Claims of neglect and compensation are properly for the courts to decide and it would be reasonable for Mrs C to ask the court to consider her claim for compensation.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council managed an application for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). She also complained the Council failed to assess or review her needs as a disabled parent to a disabled child, over at least two years. We have found the Council at fault for not properly considering the health needs of the whole household when assessing the DFG application. We have also found the Council at fault for not considering the full range of purposes for which a DFG can be awarded in its decision. We have not found the Council failed to review Mrs X’s carer needs. We have found the Council at fault for not addressing Mrs X’s complaint about this at the earliest opportunity. We have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We have found fault with pressure care management and record keeping by a care home. On balance we do not consider this caused harm, but it has led to uncertainty around pressure care and the speed of recovery. The Council and the care home accepted our recommendations, which included action to address the faults with record keeping and maintaining care plans, and to apologise to the complainant for the distress caused by the uncertainty.

Summary: Mrs X complained about some of the care services provided to her (late) mother, Mrs Y, and about some of its dealings with the family. Mrs X also complained the Care Provider did not handle her complaint properly. We have found the actions of the Care Provider caused an injustice to Mrs Y and Mrs X. The Care Provider has already offered and completed a financial remedy for the family. To remedy the injustice caused, the Care Provider has also agreed to apologise to Mrs X and review some of its procedures.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his late brother’s care and treatment during April to August 2021. This is because a significant amount of time has passed since the events Mr X is complaining about occurred and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to complain to us sooner. We are also unlikely to be able to make the findings sought by Mr X about his brother’s cause of death.

Summary: We have found fault with pressure care management and record keeping by a care home. On balance we do not consider this caused harm, but it has led to uncertainty around pressure care and the speed of recovery. The Council and the care home accepted our recommendations, which included action to address the faults with record keeping and maintaining care plans, and to apologise to the complainant for the distress caused by the uncertainty.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to follow the recommendations from a previous Ombudsman investigation. Miss X complained the Council failed to correctly update and provide support from a care plan and carers support plan. Miss X also complained the Council used a care agency without consulting with either herself or Mr Y. Miss X also complained about delays in completing a Disability Related Expenditure assessment. We found fault with the Council delaying provision of respite care and failing to consult about the care agency. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay her half the respite care costs, minus the client contribution, from 21 June 2023 to 5 February 2024.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of a safeguarding investigation regarding her late mother Ms Y’s care. The Council was at fault for not informing Mrs X of the outcome of the investigation and for not properly considering her concerns about Ms Y’s discharge to a care home. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X.

Summary: Mrs Z, on behalf of her deceased mother Mrs X, complained the Care Provider failed to carry out a safeguarding investigation and failed to properly deal with data breaches. She says this cased her mother unnecessary anxiety and discomfort during the last few months of her life. The Care Provider has accepted fault in respect of cleaning, meal provision and that a data breach occurred. It determined the threshold for a safeguarding investigation was not met. The Care Provider has taken appropriate action in respect of the faults found in this case.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about matters relating to her partner, Mr X's, care in hospital and his discharge to a nursing home under the discharge to assess procedures. This is because they are not Council services. We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaints about Mr X’s placement at a nursing home. This is because it was funded by the NHS and not the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider’s failure to seek medical intervention. There is an independent investigation ongoing which is likely to provide the outcome Mrs X seeks and it is not proportionate for us to also consider the matter at this time.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her claim for damages after her pet was injured. This is because this is a complaint about negligence which is a legal matter for the courts to consider and decide.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the care received by his relative in a Care Home from 2020 – 2022. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complaint has been made late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charges for adult social care. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an Ombudsman investigation. The Council has explained how it followed the rules to calculate what Ms C must pay and has checked its position with its legal team. The Council has followed the correct process to reach its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s care charges because any injustice is not significant enough.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council gave him insufficient notice that it was introducing two monthly, instead of monthly, invoicing. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: The complainant (Mr X) said the Council had failed to update his wife’s (Mrs X) direct payments with the inflationary increase from April 2023. We found fault with the Council’s lack of action as well as with the inadequate communication with Mr X and its failure to respond to his complaint. The Council’s fault caused Mr X frustration. He spent much time contacting the Council and other organisations. The Council agreed to apologise and make symbolic payments to recognise Mr X’s distress and his time and trouble. The Council also agreed to carry out some service improvements.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about disrepair in her home. That is because we cannot investigate the Council where it is acting as a social landlord. We will not investigate her complaint that her mother cannot safely access the garden. The Council has agreed to progress the access issues through a Disabled Facilities Grant. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr B has complained about the delay by a Trust, Council and Integrated Care Board in discharging him from section 117 of the Mental Health Act aftercare. Mr B said the delay led to distress, and anxiety. We will not investigate this complaint as, although there was a delay in informing Mr B of the discharge, he has received an apology and we would not add anything further by investigating the case.

Summary: We found fault with the falls care provided to Mr X when he was resident in a care home. We also found fault with the safeguarding enquiries carried out by the local safeguarding authority. The organisations involved will apologise to Mr X’s daughter, Ms Y, and explain what action they will take to prevent similar problems occurring for other service users. They will also pay Ms Y a financial remedy in recognition of the distress these events caused her.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how a Council communicated with Mr X and handled his complaints, which included support for a deputyship application and payment of fees for his late father’s care. The Council has already accepted fault and provided a suitable remedy. Investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve more.