New adult social care complaint decisions

A weekly update on adult social care complaint decisions

This will be our last bulletin for a while...

This will be the last weekly bulletin for a while because we paused our investigations at the end of March to protect the capacity of councils and care providers to respond to the Covid-19 crisis.

We are now accepting new complaints and have resumed paused investigations. But because there is a gap between us completing and publishing cases, there are no new cases being published at the moment. We will issue these bulletins again when new cases are being published.

Please note: our decisions are published three months after they are issued to councils, care providers and the person who has made the complaint. The cases below reflect the caselaw and guidance available at the time of issue and the individual circumstances of each case.

West Sussex County Council (18 014 449)

Summary: the Ombudsman’s decision is that there is no evidence of fault by the Council regarding its consideration that Mrs A had deprived herself of assets that could pay for her care in a care home.

Ideal Carehomes (Number One) Limited (19 007 619)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Care Provider gave her grandmother, Mrs G, insufficient notice to leave Hanley House Residential Care Home and then refused to let her collect her personal possessions. Mrs X said this caused distress and inconvenience to Mrs G and other family members. The Care Provider was at fault when it failed to provide written confirmation it had given Mrs G notice and failed to give her sufficient notice. It has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs D to acknowledge the distress and anxiety this caused.

Bedford Borough Council (19 010 435)

Summary: the Council was not at fault when it decided not to pay a Disabled Facilities Grant because builders had completed the eligible works before Mrs X returned the grant application form.

Warwickshire County Council (19 012 874)

Summary: the Council has written off a care home charge for Mr X’s mother’s short stay in a residential care home. This is a satisfactory remedy and the Ombudsman has therefore ended the investigation of Mr X’s complaint.

Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (19 014 520)

Summary: Mr X complains that Barchester Healthcare failed to take responsibility for security lapses at one of its care homes. No further action is needed as the issue is not one the Ombudsman can deal with.

London Borough of Lewisham (19 016 981)

Summary: The Ombudsman does not propose to investigate this complaint about the provision of care to the complainant’s father. This is because the complaint is made late and there are no good reasons to investigate it now.

City of York Council (19 019 280)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to properly consider the law and guidance when deciding Mrs X deliberately deprived herself of capital to avoid care charges. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Essex County Council (19 020 446)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant must provide a recent benefit decision letter before it will issue a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Wolverhampton City Council (19 008 005)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to offer her a needs assessment following surgery and did not provide care or equipment she needed to stay independent. She said this caused her and her husband stress and inconvenience. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Hamax Ltd (19 011 412)

Summary: There was no evidence of fault in the way the agency’s carer provided care to Mr and Mrs D while she lived with them.

Royal Borough of Greenwich (19 018 045)

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council-funded care her brother received from a domiciliary care agency, and the Council’s subsequent delay in investigating the neglect he suffered. We will not consider this late complaint. While the Council’s investigation was responsible for some of the time it took before Mrs X complained, it would have been reasonable for her to complain to the Ombudsman sooner and it is unlikely we could now carry out a fair investigation.

London Borough of Bromley (19 018 544)

Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of his father, Mr Y, that the Council did not properly investigate safeguarding concerns about his father. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is a more suitable person to represent Mr Y.

London Borough of Croydon (19 007 129)

Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Council in this complaint. It followed the code of practice set out in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 before coming to a decision not to move Mr & Mrs Y from their care home.

Lancashire County Council (19 010 255)

Summary: There was fault in the way the Council carried out an initial financial assessment and then failed to respond to an email from the complainant. The Council has apologised for these faults which is an appropriate remedy. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council carried out a financial assessment in April 2019, but the Council should not have sent out a standard financial agreement to Mrs B as it did not apply to her situation. Mrs B has not suffered a significant injustice as a result of this.

Cornwall Council (19 012 822)

Summary: The Ombudsman has discontinued its investigation into Mrs C’s complaint as there is an ongoing safeguarding enquiry into the same matter.

Staffordshire County Council (19 010 290)

Summary: There is no fault by the Council in the way it undertook a safeguarding investigation into concerns about how Mr X and his brother managed his late mother’s finances. It acted properly and in accordance with the law

Kent County Council (19 014 198)

Summary: There is no fault by the Council in how it investigated Mrs X’s complaint about the care provided to her late mother in a residential home. It carried a full and fair safeguarding investigation which reached evidence-based conclusions.

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (19 016 860)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about care provided to his mother, Mrs C, by her care provider. This is because it is unlikely he could add to the care provider’s response or make a different finding even if he investigated. The care provider has apologised for its failings and implemented additional procedures. The Ombudsman is satisfied this remedies the injustice caused to Mrs C from the fault.

Buckinghamshire County Council (19 018 653)

Summary: The Ombudsmen will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about events from May to July 2018. The complaints are late and there are insufficient grounds to accept them now.

Leeds City Council (19 013 274)

Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached a decision not to award Miss X a blue badge.

Luton Borough Council (19 018 791)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not tell the complainant that he would have to make a contribution towards his care costs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Bristol City Council (19 019 142)

Summary: The complaint is about the Council not replying to a letter. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the Council has now agreed to reply.

Southend-on-Sea Borough Council (18 012 591)

Summary: Mrs X and Mrs Z complain about the care provided to Mrs Y and that the Care Provider gave notice in response to their complaints. This meant Mrs Y had to move from her home and caused Mrs X and Mrs Y significant stress and anxiety. They also complain that the Council failed to deal adequately with the issues. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault in all these issues. It has agreed to apologise, reimburse some fees and pay £200 to Mrs X and Mrs Y. It will also take action to avoid similar problems in future.

Lincolnshire County Council (18 012 682)

Summary: A woman complained about failures in her section 117 aftercare by the council, an NHS Partnership Trust, and a Clinical Commissioning Group. The Ombudsmen find failures in the way requests for direct payments were considered. Social care assessments were not completed as they should have been. Community mental health services did not properly respond to referrals by other professionals. This caused injustice, but it did not cause the woman to be without support for over a year. The organisations have agreed to take action to remedy the injustice.

Surrey County Council (18 019 116)

Summary: Ms Y complains the Council was at fault in its handling of her father’s care needs. We have found some evidence of fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to reconsider if Home CL met her father’s assessed needs and take the appropriate action if it decides it did not.

Hestoncourt Limited (19 001 354)

Summary: Mrs X complains about the care provided to Mrs Y and the way the Care Provider dealt with her complaint about that. The Ombudsman finds the Care Provider caused injustice in the way it dealt with Mrs X’s complaints as it falsified records and was not open about the events. He also finds the Care Provider did not adequately care for Mrs Y. He recommends the Care Provider apologise and provide training to all staff about the importance of accurate records.

London Borough of Newham (19 006 386)

Summary: Mrs B complains about the care provided by Romford Care Centre (RCC) to her father, Mr D. There was fault by the Council and the care provider. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Mrs B.

Durham County Council (19 008 136)

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s actions as deputy for property and finances for his late father, Mr Y. He says it failed to ensure a new lease was in place for his father’s business before a change in tenant, or inspect it before the new tenant moved in. We found the Council acted appropriately to make decisions as Mr Y’s deputy regarding the tenancy transfer. However, it failed to act promptly to deal with reported damage to the property, or to visit it when the tenant left to check on its condition. It has agreed to apologise and pay Mr X £500 to remedy injustice caused by this fault.

East Sussex County Council (19 010 541)

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to properly consider her request for items of expenditure for her daughter Ms Y to be considered as Disability Related Expenditure. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters.

London Borough of Hounslow (19 013 583)

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s decision not to issue her a blue badge. The Ombudsman finds the Council was not at fault.

Sentimental Care Limited (19 014 142)

Summary: Mrs X and Mrs Z complain that the Care Provider gave 12 days’ notice and would not refund fees paid in advance. It also would not deal with their complaint about this. The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation as the Care Provider has ceased trading and we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X and Mrs Z want.

London Borough of Enfield (19 016 402)

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the care her brother received because it concerns matters that are solely the responsibility of the NHS.

London Borough of Merton (19 016 700)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about charges for Mr X’s attendance at a day centre. This is because the Council is no longer asking for any payment.

Bluebird Care (Peterborough & Rutland) (19 018 415)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that his father was charged for care he did not receive. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would find fault with the care provider.

West Sussex County Council (19 018 536)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not consider her complaint about an advocacy service properly. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint further as there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Leicester City Council (19 019 032)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s Adult Social Care and Environmental Health teams. This is because the complaint is late, and it is unlikely we would find fault.