A weekly update on adult social care complaint decisions

Summary: Miss Z complained on behalf of her father that the Council wrongly charged him for 45 minute care calls after agreeing to reduce them to 30 minutes. The Council accepts it did not act in a timely manner and has proposed a suitable remedy. This includes refunding the cost of the extra 15 minutes and making a symbolic payment to Miss Z to recognise her inconvenience.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an incident that occurred when Mr Z was in a care home. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not achieve any further meaningful outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about adult safeguarding provision, as it is unlikely, we would find evidence of Council fault. Part of the complaint is late and there are no good reasons the late complaint rule should not apply. Other issues have been in a previous complaint to the Ombudsman.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the care home misplaced a former resident’s possessions. The possessions did not belong to Ms X. There is insufficient personal injustice to warrant an investigation and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Lifeline services provided to meet adult social care needs. The Council accepted fault and has taken satisfactory action to acknowledge the impact on the complainant and improve future service. There is not enough evidence to suggest a wider problem that would justify investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the actions of her mother’s care home towards the family and about the quality of care provided to her mother. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s decision not to include certain disability related expenditure in its financial assessment, meaning she has to pay more for the cost of her care. We found the Council at fault for how it considered whether a private prescription for Ms X could be included as disability related expenditure. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and re-consider whether her private prescription could be included as disability related expenditure.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council has not complied with the Ombudsman’s previous recommendation for an independent survey. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complains that Chichester Grange Care Home failed to provide adequate care to his mother, Mrs Y. The care home failed to adequately assess Mrs Y’s needs when she was discharged from hospital and it cannot show how it dealt with Mr X’s concerns about Mrs Y becoming dehydrated. The faults caused distress to Mr X and Ms Z which the Care Provider has agreed to remedy by sending a written apology and making a payment of £300 to each of them.

Summary: We have found fault in the way the care home provided care to Mrs D, particularly in relation to personal hygiene, provision of stimulating activities and moving and handling. This has caused distress to Mrs D’s daughter and we recommend that the care home apologises, pays a financial remedy and carries out a service improvement.

Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision about the inclusion of the loan in Mr and Mrs X’s financial assessment, and no evidence of delay or poor communication.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to assess and meet her daughter’s needs sufficiently, which affected her daughter and placed a burden on her to meet her daughter’s needs. We did not find any fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s Adult Social Care provision to Mr X because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: Miss Y complains the Council and ICB will not pay for a gym membership for her, which she believes she is eligible for under her S117 aftercare plan. I have reviewed Miss Y’s plan. The Council and the ICB did not say they would provide funding so there is no fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial assessment for adult social care fees. The complainant has known about the issues for more than 12 months and there is no good reason they could not have complained within 12 months of knowing of the issues.

Summary: We cannot by law investigate this complaint about the Council making purportedly making allegations against the complainant which resulted in her being arrested. This is because the issues raised overlap with matters being investigated by the police.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council has wrongly reduced the number of hours of direct payment she receives for her care and support needs. And has failed to properly consider her disability related expenses. Miss X says the Council’s actions have had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reassessed Miss X’s care and support needs. However the Council’s failure to provide full information and properly advise Miss X regarding disability related expenses is fault.

Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council failed to comply with the agreed action in the Ombudsman’s final decision for her previous complaint to source a domestic support provider for her. The Council took sufficient action to source a domestic support provider for Mrs X. But the Council is at a fault as it failed to consider if it needed to make reasonable adjustments for Mrs X to complete the paperwork for direct payments. This fault did not cause significant injustice to Mrs X.

Summary: Mrs Y complained about the care her friend, the late Mrs X, received while in a care home and the conduct of the manager. We will not continue with our investigation. This is because any further investigation by us would be unlikely to add anything to the care provider’s response to Mrs Y’s complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care support at home. It is unlikely we would add to the Council’s investigation or reach a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about overpayment for adult social care at home. This is because the Care Provider has agreed to refund the overpayment. We are satisfied with the actions the Care Provider has agreed to take and it is unlikely an investigation would achieve anything further.

Summary: Mrs B complained that the Care Provider unreasonably charged her for four weeks fees in lieu of notice when she moved her husband Mr B to a new home . She said she was not aware of the notice period and had not signed a contract. She was also unhappy with the standard of care Mr B received. We found the Care Provider did not make clear to Mrs B that it considered Mr B was a permanent resident. We have asked the Care Provider to make a symbolic payment of £200 to Mrs B for the distress caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a blue badge application. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: The Council delayed in completing Mr X’s support plan following a Care Act assessment, failed to advise him at the outset that direct payments could not be used to pay a relative to act as his personal assistant because she was living in the same household and reversed its agreement to backdate direct payments. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr X and his family.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to share information on the outcome of a complaint about her grandmother’s care. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council’s safeguarding investigation. There is not a good reason for the delay in bringing the matter to the Ombudsman. In any event, further investigation by us is unlikely to achieve a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions following the death of a citizen. The Council was required to arrange a funeral, which it did. The Council acted to seek the next of kin. While we appreciate the distress for the next of kin, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s investigation or achieve a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to stop the direct payment which enabled a family member to provide care for his three adult children. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s application to the Court of Protection and appointment as deputy for his relative. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about court action.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council closing his son’s case in 2017. There is nothing further we could to the Council’s investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to not apply a property disregard for the purposes of deciding care charges. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it has sought to determine if a property disregard should be applied in accordance with the Care Act 2014 and its statutory guidance. Further, the Council has offered to review its decision following receipt of evidence by the complainant and we cannot add to this outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to remove a disabled parking bay from outside the complainant’s home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the care of the her adult daughter, Ms Z. This is because we do not consider that Mrs X is a suitable representative to act on behalf of Ms Z.

Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council reduced her care package without properly assessing her needs. We have found fault in the way the Council re-assessed Mr B’s needs for care and support. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy, re-assess Mrs B’s needs and provide her with an updated support plan.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delays in the Council accepting a disability facilities grant referral and completing an occupational therapy assessment. This is because an investigation would not lead to any worthwhile outcomes.

Summary: Mr C complains the Council provided inaccurate charging information for residential care, and wrongly refused an application for a deferred payment agreement. The Council is at fault for failing to properly advise Mr C of charges and payments it was willing to make. This caused him stress, time, and trouble. To put things right the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr C, make him a symbolic payment, and make service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charging for adult social care. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decisions. It has followed a proper process and clearly explained its decisions. The Ombudsman cannot settle the dispute about whether a mandatory property disregard should apply.