A weekly update on adult social care complaint decisions

Summary: Ms Z complained about the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s finances and will. We have ended our investigation as issues around Mr X’s will are best resolved by a solicitor, the records show Mr X did not want Ms Z involved in his finances and Mr X has died so any injustice caused to him cannot be remedied.

Summary: Mrs Q complains the Council delayed referring her daughter for an Adult Social Care assessment, in the time before her 18th birthday. And when it did make the referral it did not tell them and delayed responding to her contacts. We uphold the complaint. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Summary: Mrs Y complained about the way the Council supported her late relative Mr X with his finances and other affairs. The Council was not at fault for not involving Mrs Y in Mr X’s finances or in the support it provided to Mr X for arranging a solicitor. It was at fault for delay in actioning Mr X’s request that it support him with his finances but this did not cause a significant injustice. The Council was at fault for the delay in responding to Mrs Y’s complaint for which it has already apologised.

Summary: Mrs B complains that her son’s care provider did not provide adequate care to her son before he was admitted to hospital and says there was poor communication from the care provider. She also says the Council did not properly investigate her complaints or communicate with her. We have found fault as there were instances of poor communication from the care provider and from the Council and this would have added to the distress the family experienced. The Council has agreed to apologise to the family and to ensure that the service improvements that had previously been agreed have been implemented.

Summary: Mr Y complains about the method used by the Council to calculate the date from which his mother, Mrs Z, would become eligible for funded social care. In our view, there is an error in the Council’s calculations which it should review and apologise for.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to progress with adaptations to the complainant’s home. The Council confirms it has an appointment to visit the complainant to carry out a new assessment and progress the case. We consider an investigation at this time would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about matters relating to her direct payment. This is because the Council has offered to carry out a reassessment of Mrs X’s needs in order to consider the issues raised further and it is reasonable to expect Mrs X to complete this process before we will consider her complaint.

Summary: Mrs B complains the Council did not tell her she would need to inform it if she started receiving a personal independence payment when a Council social worker helped her make an application. The Council accepts it knew about the award and should not have backdated charges. The Council has offered a satisfactory remedy which involves an apology, cancelling the backdated charges, payment to Mrs B and reminder to officers.

Summary: Ms B says the Council failed to put in place sufficient support to enable her to return home from respite, delayed making those arrangements, failed to carry out mental capacity assessments properly, misled her family about what it was doing and failed to consider a complaint properly. There is no fault in the way the Council arranged the care provision at home. The Council failed to share important information with Ms B and her family, failed to properly advise her and failed to consider a complaint properly. An apology, payment to Mrs C and a reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: Mrs Y complained on behalf of her mother, Mrs X. Mrs Y complained about how the Council dealt with Mrs X’s residential care charges and the Council’s poor communication with Mrs Y about the matter. There were some faults by the Council which caused injustice to Mrs Y. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: There is no evidence to show Mrs X was provided with poor care in a residential care home.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about an adult social care needs assessment completed for her relative in 2022 and the charges for his care. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to investigate now.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the way the Council has handled his involvement with its services. Further investigation would not add to the Council’s response or lead to a different result.

Summary: Mr D complained about the support provided to his daughter who lives in supported living accommodation. We found some fault in the Council’s service provision and communications. This resulted in some avoidable distress and frustration for Mr D and his daughter. The Council has accepted these findings and at the end of this statement, we set out action it has agreed to remedy this injustice.

Summary: There is no evidence that the Council delayed Mr X’s move from the assessment unit unnecessarily while his family was looking for a care home. The care provider acknowledged there may have been a lack of communication about the assessment unit and some other facilities were less than ideal, for which the care provider apologised.

Summary: Ms X complains Park View Care Centre overcharged her aunt, Ms Y, for her care, prevented her from returning to her own home and made false allegations against Ms X. Ms Y was not overcharged for her care. However, Park View raised baseless safeguarding concerns which caused avoidable distress. It needs to apologise for that distress.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council overcharged Mr Y for care he received which caused her a financial loss and distress. We do not find fault with how the Council carried out its financial assessments or charged for Mr Y’s care.

Summary: We will not investigate a complaint about how a Trust and a Council dealt with a complaint about the care provided to the complainant’s brother. This is because he did not provide consent to share his information and this was appropriately considered by the organisations during the local complaints process.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way Devon County Council and Devon Partnership NHS Trust acted in relation to a hospital detention. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because an investigation is unlikely to find fault in the organisations’ actions.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr P’s complaint. We are unlikely to find fault with the way North East Lincolnshire Council and NHS Humber and North Yorkshire Integrated Care Board decided how much to pay towards his direct payment.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council has failed to provide suitable supported housing or an appropriate package of care and support to meet her son, Mr Y’s needs. The Council’s repeated failure to ensure Mr Y received the care and support required to meet his assessed needs is fault. This fault has caused Mr Y and Miss X an injustice.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council charged her mother, Mrs Y, for care the family had been told was free of charge. We found fault as the Council failed to properly communicate when free care ended and chargeable care began or to communicate in a timely manner when Ms X challenged the charges. This caused avoidable distress and frustration for the family. The Council has already apologised and completed an appropriate remedy which Ms X and Mrs Y accepted.

Summary: Mrs K complains the Council failed to consult her regarding her adult son’s move to a new placement. She says she did not agree to it, and she now finds it very difficult to visit him. There was fault by the Council. It has agreed a remedy.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council billed her daughter for £20,000 in care charges for the time she spent in supported living from 2015 to 2022. Ms X says her daughter cannot manage her own finances and it failed to tell Ms X about the care charges. The Council has accepted fault for failing to complete a capacity assessment of Ms X’s daughter or keep either Ms X or her daughter suitably informed about care charges. The Council has offered to remove £15,339.64 worth of care charges from 2019 to December 2022. This is a suitable offer to reflect the fault. The Council also agreed to apologise to Ms X for delays in confirming the care charges owed from January 2023 to June 2023 and offer a payment arrangement to repay this balance owed.

Summary: There is evidence of fault by the care home, in that it failed to keep sufficiently detailed records which resulted in a lack of clarity and subsequent uncertainty for Mr Y’s relatives. The care home also delayed in responding to Mrs X’s complaint, for which it has already apologised.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about Mr X’s mother’s transfer to a care home in the Council’s area and her subsequent death after contracting COVID-19. There is not a good reason for the delay in the complaint being brought to the Ombudsman. In any event, we could not achieve a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council informed her that her mother’s care would be free and then sent them an invoice for care contributions. Mrs X also complains the Council delayed in carrying out a financial assessment. The Council’s apology for the delays is sufficient to remedy any injustice caused.

Summary: There were some faults by the care provider in the delivery of Mrs X’s care. The family has been reimbursed some costs for late or short calls but in my view the care provider should go further. Some aspects of poor care caused particular distress and failed to respect Mrs X’s dignity, and the care provider should also offer a sum which recognises that.