A weekly update on adult social care complaint decisions

Summary: Miss X complains about matters affecting her late aunt, Miss Y’s, discharge from hospital. We will not investigate this complaint. An investigation is unlikely to find fault in the discharge process or achieve the outcomes Miss X seeks.

Summary: Ms D complains about faults in the Council’s safeguarding investigation into her mother’s injury. We find fault by the Council regarding its handling of the investigation. It has agreed a remedy.

Summary: MX complained about the Council’s response to complaints about care provided to their mother. MX says they suffered significant distress about their mother’s care and uncertainty about the outcome. We have found fault by the Council in some of its communication but consider the agreed action of an apology and further contact with MX provides a suitable remedy.

Summary: Miss X complains about the care provided to her deceased partner Mr Y. Park House Care Home ran out of his prescribed antibiotic, he got an infection and three days later sadly died. We found indications of fault; staff did not keep accurate records, so I do not know what happened. We cannot remedy the injustice to Mr Y so we recommended and Four Seasons agreed to apologise, make service improvements and a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice to Miss X.

Summary: Miss X complains about the care provided to her deceased partner Mr Y. Park House Care Home ran out of his prescribed antibiotic, he got an infection and three days later sadly died. We found indications of fault; staff did not keep accurate records, so I do not know what happened. We cannot remedy the injustice to Mr Y so we recommended and Four Seasons agreed to apologise, make service improvements and a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice to Miss X.

Summary: Mr S complained the Council delayed completing a financial assessment for his father, Mr F and failed to provide information about the charges. The Council also failed to advise him about the NHS Continuing Healthcare (CHC) scheme. The Council is at fault for failing to refer Mr F to the CHC scheme, failing to provide detailed written information about the financial assessment and failing to complete this within a reasonable timeframe.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about money missing from an estate. The police are better placed to investigate an allegation of theft. The Information Commissioner’s Office are better placed to investigate a complaint about the release of information. There is no worthwhile outcome from an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council including a home’s value in a financial assessment for social care charges. We cannot achieve more about the Council’s delay and its misdirecting Miss X to the wrong Council procedure. The Council properly reached its decision not to disregard the home’s value.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about bathroom adaptations offered by the Council. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about her father’s social worker. She says the social worker failed to keep her up to date with what was happening, failed to give her all the information she needed to make informed decisions, and failed to update her by email as requested. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the alleged fault has not caused any significant injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Nursing Home cared for his mother, Mrs Y, and her belongings. We will not investigate this complaint because the organisation has already admitted fault in several areas of Mrs Y’s care. It has apologised, made service improvements, and trained its staff to ensure the faults do not happen again. It has also accepted it has lost one of her rings. Further investigation by the Ombudsmen would not achieve anything more.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Nursing Home cared for his mother, Mrs Y, and her belongings. We will not investigate this complaint because the organisation has already admitted fault in several areas of Mrs Y’s care. It has apologised, made service improvements, and trained its staff to ensure the faults do not happen again. It has also accepted it has lost one of her rings. Further investigation by the Ombudsmen would not achieve anything more.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council reviewed a care needs assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council is mismanaging his money. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Furthermore, Mr X can complain to the Office of the Public Guardian if he is unhappy with the actions of the Council in its role as his deputy.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to tell him he might be charged for his care. The Council has waived some of the charges. An investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about @.

Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council’s reablement team went about assessing her needs in 2022 and about various issues associated with her son’s care and her role as a carer. We found no fault with how the 2022 reablement assessment was conducted. However, we found there was a failure to respond to her complaint in January 2023 and delay in carrying out an investigation into direct payment issues. We recommended an apology and that the council took action. We also recommended both Ms X and the Council considered taking part in mediation.

Summary: We uphold this complaint finding the Council at fault for not completing a carer’s assessment. This caused injustice to the complainant as distress, arising from uncertainty and frustration. The Council accepts these findings and has agreed to apologise.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an adult social care short stay in a care home. This is because we are satisfied with the actions the Care Provider has taken, and it is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further. The Care Provider has apologised for failures in communication, offered to refund for lost items, and spoken with staff to improve future service.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her adult child’s Blue Badge renewal and theft of Blue Badges from her vehicle. The Council was at fault for taking too long to process the Blue Badge renewal. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and clarify the parking rules outside her home.

Summary: Miss A complained about a council and care agency regarding her placement at supported accommodation. We found fault with the agency for the care it provided which led to risks to Miss A’s mental and physical health. The agency has carried out work to improve its care and will provide a personal remedy to Miss A.

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to properly complete works agreed to be carried out under a disabled facilities grant for his father, Mr Y. We found the Council failed to inform Mr X about changes to the agreed works, failed to install fencing on completion of the works and delayed in responding to his complaint. In recognition of the injustice caused the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and Mr Y and make a payment to them.

Summary: We did not uphold a complaint about the charge for Mr X’s care because the Council’s financial assessment was in line with guidance on charging for non-residential care.

Summary: Miss X, a solicitor, complained that Advinia Care Home Limited added extra fees to Mrs Y’s invoice and failed to make a full refund. The Care Provider was at fault for not explaining the care fees properly. We also found fault with the way the Care Provider dealt with the refund and inadequate complaint handling. This was detrimental to Mrs Y’s estate and caused distress to Mr Z. The Care Provider has already apologised for this and reviewed its processes for extra care charges. However, we recommend it also makes a payment to recognise the distress to Mr Z.