Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (19 014 898)

Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 04-Mar-2021

Summary: We have found fault in the way the Council carried out a safeguarding investigation into the care that the Agency provided, fault in the way the Council decided the care plan and fault in the care the Agency provided. The Council has agreed to apologise to the family and pay them £1,000 for the distress they suffered in addition to the £1,000 reduction in the fees the Council has already offered.

Norfolk County Council (20 004 018)

Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 04-Mar-2021

Summary: Ms X complained about the care and support provided to her father Mr Y by a Council commissioned care provider and that the Council failed to notify her when the care provider gave notice to terminate the contract. There was no fault in the care provided or in the way the care provider responded to Ms X’s concerns. The care provider was at fault when staff failed to complete daily records on four occasions and when a member of staff made an inappropriate comment to Mr Y. It has already taken action to prevent this recurring. The Council was at fault for not informing Ms X the care provider had terminated the contract. The faults caused Ms X and Mr Y distress and meant Ms X had to care for Mr Y when there was a gap in care provision. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to Ms X and Mr Y to acknowledge the impact of the faults.

Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (20 001 400)

Statement Upheld Other 04-Mar-2021

Summary: Miss X’s representative complained the Council as Miss X’s financial appointee failed to ensure she claimed a personal independence payment. So, she missed out on benefit she was entitled to receive. There was a delay in Miss X receiving the benefits and some of this delay was due to Council fault. The Council has agreed to pay Miss X £500 to acknowledge the lost opportunity caused by the Council’s delays.

Norfolk County Council (19 016 522)

Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 03-Mar-2021

Summary: The Council acted appropriately when Mrs X raised safeguarding concerns about her mother, Mrs Y. It followed correct procedures in line with the relevant law. We have completed our investigation and have not upheld Mrs X’s complaint.

London Borough of Hackney (19 019 134)

Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 03-Mar-2021

Summary: the complainant complained the Council failed to properly supervise and provide suitable home care for her father causing distress. The Council says it followed proper procedures. We found the Council at fault in handling the concerns raised.

Foxholes Nursing Home Limited (20 001 450)

Statement Upheld Covid-19 03-Mar-2021

Summary: Mr D complains on behalf of his late mother that there was a delay in providing pain medication at the end of her life, causing significant distress and pain. We have found fault causing injustice. The organisations have accepted our recommendations. We have therefore completed our investigation.

Excell Home Care Limited (20 002 593)

Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 02-Mar-2021

Summary: The investigation into this complaint will be discontinued. The care company has now offered to waive all outstanding charges, and refund Mrs Y the retainer fee she paid

London Borough of Ealing (20 003 066)

Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 02-Mar-2021

Summary: There was no fault in the care the Council-commissioned care home provided to Ms X’s father, Mr Y. The Council also appropriately investigated and responded to Ms X’s complaint.

Stocks Hall Care Homes Ltd (19 015 787)

Statement Upheld Other 02-Mar-2021

Summary: Mrs C complained about how the Care Home terminated her father, Mr D’s, placement. The Care Home has not properly considered how the move would affect Mr D or explored alternative ways of meeting his needs. The Care Home will take steps to remedy the injustice Mr D has suffered.

North Yorkshire County Council (19 018 824)

Statement Upheld Residential care 02-Mar-2021

Summary: The Council’s commissioned care provider failed to take precautions to protect the late Mrs Y’s skin integrity in accordance with her risk assessments. It also failed to seek the correct medical help promptly. The Council’s safeguarding investigation was at fault in finding the home had acted appropriately when it had gathered evidence to the contrary. The Council will now offer Mr X an apology and a sum in recognition of the distress its actions caused.