New adult social care complaint decisions

adult social care

A weekly update on adult social care complaint decisions


Summary: The Council delayed in reviewing Mrs P’s needs and updating her care and support plan. Her care provider, Boldglen, also failed to consistently meet all her care needs. The Council needs to apologise and pay financial redress to her granddaughter.

Summary: The Information Commissioner’s Office would be better placed than the Ombudsman’s office to consider Ms X’s complaint about the poor handling/loss of records by her mother’s care home which is part of Hassingham Ltd. I do not therefore intend pursuing the complaint further.

Summary: The Council has not dealt properly with the decision to treat someone as having notional capital because she gave away £150,000. The Council needs to reconsider its decision in line with the Care & Support Statutory Guidance.

Summary: There was fault in how the Council recorded the result of Mrs Y’s mobility assessment as part of her Blue Badge application. There was also fault as the Council did not provide a way for Mrs Y to have the decision in her case reviewed locally without coming to the Ombudsman. The Council granted Mrs Y a fresh assessment and the Ombudsman has asked it to reconsider its Blue Badge review procedure.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr A’s complaint that he should have been discharged from hospital with section 117 aftercare. This is because the Council has not had any involvement with Mr A’s care or discharge from hospital so his complaint is not a matter the Ombudsman can investigate.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the quality of care and support her autistic daughter received from a care agency; the Council’s handling of safeguarding referrals; and its handling of the complaints she made to it. There was fault by the Council on these points. The Council agreed to remedy the injustice to Mrs X’s daughter through a compensation payment of £750. It also agreed to pay Mrs X £100 for her time and trouble.

Summary: Mr C complained to us that his mother’s care home had failed to put a bed rails in place, which would have prevented a fall. I found that, although the care home failed to carry out a bed risk assessment, it is unlikely such an assessment would have resulted in bed rails for Mr C’s mother.

Summary: The events about which Mrs X complains happened more than three years ago and I do not consider that we should exercise our discretion to investigate.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint that the Council gave him misleading information and advice about his father’s finances in a meeting in 2015. This is because it is unlikely the Ombudsman could add to the Council’s response or make a finding of the kind Mr A wants.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how a Mental Capacity Assessment was carried out. This is because no worthwhile outcome could be achieved through further investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that her sister’s former social worker supported a decision that her sister should not receive NHS continuing healthcare funding. An investigation by the Ombudsman of the social worker’s actions would not go to the key point at issue.

Summary: The Ombudsman has decided not to investigate a complaint about Direct Payments as he is satisfied the Council acted without fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs D’s complaint about the Council’s decision that her daughter is not eligible for residential care. It is unlikely we would find fault.

Summary: There is fault in the way the Council handled this application for a Blue Badge. This is because it does not have a proper review process for applicants who have had their application refused after a mobility assessment.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about an application for a Blue Badge because it is unlikely he would find fault by the Council.

Summary: The Council and the Trust did not delay when dealing with the complainant’s late wife’s discharge arrangements. The Trust failed to ensure the complainant’s wife’s prognosis was provided by an appropriate clinician. This then impacted on her eligibility for fast track healthcare funding and led to the complainant having raised expectations about his wife’s discharge destination. The Trust has agreed to the Ombudsmen’s recommendations that it apologises to the complainant, pays the complainant £250, takes action to prevent similar fault and that it improves.

Summary: The Council was not at fault in the way it made a decision about deprivation of capital when calculating what contribution a service user should make towards the cost of their care.

Summary: The Council has not properly explained its decision to refuse Mr X’s blue badge application. It has not explained how its decision followed Government guidance. Its records of how it decided his application are inadequate. These faults mean Mr X cannot understand the Council’s decision. The Council should apologise and offer Mr X a fresh assessment with a new assessor within one month of our final decision.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint alleging poor care during a Council arranged respite care stay. Mrs X has made her complaint late and I do not see good reasons to investigate.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council should refund his mother, Mrs Y’s, care charges. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions and it is unlikely further investigation would find any.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council failed to take safeguarding action to protect his aunt, Mrs Y, and failed to share its safeguarding report with him. This is because it is unlikely further investigation would add to the safeguarding investigation, find any fault, or lead to a different outcome.