A weekly update on adult social care complaint decisions

Summary: Mr W complained the Council has wrongly issued a bill for his late mother’s brief stay in a care home. He says the Council did not explain it would charge for the stay and has billed a higher sum than it paid to the care home. We found the Council at fault for not carrying out a proper financial assessment. We do not consider the Council to be at fault for issuing a bill. The Council has agreed to reissue its bill, apologise to Mr W, and review its processes to improve its service.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about deprivation of capital. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: Mrs B says the Council wrongly refused to pay towards the cost of an extension as part of a disabled facilities grant application after completing an inaccurate means test. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision. The Council failed to properly explain a means test was required before any payment would be released. An apology is satisfactory remedy for that.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council’s best interests decision. That is because the complaint is late, and the matters are best considered through the Court of Protection.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how best to meet adult social care needs. The complainant and Council are in dispute over suitable accommodation. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making to justify an investigation.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss Y not being kept informed about her relative’s welfare in the last few months of their life. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We are unlikely to find evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council treated her mother’s, Ms Y’s, purchase of a car as a deprivation of assets when completing a financial assessment. The Council is at fault for attaching weight to the V5 certificate which it says shows legal ownership of the vehicle.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. There is no evidence to support the Council persuaded Ms C not to allow the complainant to move in with her. Ms C had capacity to make her own decisions about her care support; she chose to live alone and to pay for care.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council is not giving her adult son, Mr Y, sufficient support to meet his needs. She says direct payments from the Council do not cover the cost of respite care and the Council will not allow her flexibility in how she spends the payments. She says she is struggling to care for Mr Y as he gets older and wants the Council to consider individual requests to spend the money. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for failing to keep adequate records and failing to complete an investigation as promised. The Council has offered to cover the shortfall in the respite care payments in September and complete a further review. We agree these are the most suitable practical remedies for the injustice and additionally recommend the Council apologises to Mrs X, makes service improvements, and pays her a financial remedy for the distress caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the support provided by the Council’s adult social care service. The Council has apologised to Mr X and acted to learn from the complaint. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to deal with safeguarding reports about Mrs B properly. It also failed – for six months – to find a new placement for the person in Mrs B’s care home who was a risk to her, despite its best efforts. These failings contributed significantly to harm Mrs B suffered over a nine-month period. The Council has taken steps to improve its service, and it has now also agreed to make a symbolic payment to Mrs B’s estate to recognise her injustice.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide the care and support at home that her mother-in-law Mrs Y needed when she was discharged from hospital. There is no fault by the Council.

Summary: We found no fault by a Council and Trust in terms of their decision to change Miss Y’s support arrangements. However, we did find fault with how they communicated those changes to Miss Y and her mother, Mrs X. The Council and Trust will apologise for this and make changes to prevent similar problems occurring in future. They will also make a symbolic payment to Miss Y and Mrs X to recognise the distress this caused them.

Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council conducted a Care Act assessment of her needs, and how it responded to her complaints about that matter. The Council was at fault as it delayed completing an assessment and providing appropriate support for Ms X and did not keep clear and accurate records. The Council will apologise to Ms X and pay her £3,000 to recognise the injustice caused to her by the faults and improve its services to avoid similar drift and delay in the future.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a lack of support for carers in the Council’s area. This is because many of the issues raised happened too long ago and I seen no good reason why they could not have been raised sooner. We could not add to the Council’s investigation into other matters.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to pay towards the cost of an access ramp the complainant installed in his home. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision.

Summary: The Council’s decision to change Mrs X’s care agency despite the recommendation of a senior mental health nurse about consistency of care had a detrimental effect on her stability. The Council should review the way in which it responds to changing needs and consider how it exercises discretion over care choices to avoid the risk of giving the impression it has a blanket policy. It agrees to offer a proportionate amount to Mrs X and Ms A in recognition of the considerable anxiety they suffered during this time.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council delayed dealing with a disabled facility grant. The Council delayed dealing with his application. Mr X suffered delay and avoidable distress. The Council should pay Mr X £500.