Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (21 013 303)
Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 11-Apr-2022
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision not to appoint him as Relevant Person's Representative for his mother's Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation. We have ended the investigation as the appointed Relevant Person's Representative has approached the Court of Protection and Mr X is party to the proceedings. The Court is best placed to address Mr X's concerns and make decisions in his mother's best interests.
London Borough of Harrow (21 003 547)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 07-Apr-2022
Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not appropriately safeguard his father Mr D and failed to involve him and his sister Ms Y in its decisions regarding Mr D's social care needs. He also complained the Council did not properly respond to complaints he made about this. He said this matter caused him and his family distress. The Council was at fault when it delayed arranging a capacity and needs assessment for Mr D. The Council has agreed to do so now and provide evidence it has reminded its staff of the importance of arranging timely assessments when necessary.
Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (21 000 993)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 07-Apr-2022
Summary: Mrs Y complained about the Council's assessment of her support needs. We have found fault by the Council in its delay completing one of the assessments. The Council should remedy this by making a payment to reflect the distress this caused Mrs Y.
Royal Borough of Greenwich (21 009 336)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 05-Apr-2022
Summary: There is evidence of fault in this complaint. There are inconsistencies in two needs assessments completed eight weeks apart. The Council failed to record an increase in care hours as temporary and failed to inform Mrs X of the same. The latter assessment failed to properly consider if/how Mrs X's health impacted on her care needs.
London Borough of Southwark (21 010 204)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 04-Apr-2022
Summary: There was fault by the Council in complaint handling, poor feedback about safeguarding concerns and a failure to respond promptly to a request for a change in care provider. This caused Ms Y avoidable distress. The Council will apologise and pay Ms Y £500.
Stoke-on-Trent City Council (21 008 248)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 03-Apr-2022
Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to tell him his father had left a will, preventing him from complying with his father's wishes when he arranged his funeral. The Council accepts it failed to deal with this properly and has apologised. It also needs to make a symbolic payment to Mr X for the distress caused.
Leeds City Council (21 007 702)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 03-Apr-2022
Summary: Mr C complained about the process through which the Council assessed his mother's finances to determine when she would reach the threshold to be eligible for Council support. We found there was some delay by the Council that should have been avoided, for which the Council has agreed to apologise. However, there was no fault with the Council's decision to refer Mrs M's case to the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG).
Somerset County Council (21 012 902)
Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 30-Mar-2022
Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council carried out social care assessments for Mr and Mrs X.
Bedford Borough Council (20 007 526)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 30-Mar-2022
Summary: Ms X complains that she was billed for care that she did not receive and was not supported against financial abuse. There was fault by the Council because it did not include any contingency plan in Ms X's care plan. The Council agreed a financial remedy to reflect the injustice caused to Ms X.
Luton Borough Council (21 004 603)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 30-Mar-2022
Summary: Mrs B complained the Council and the CCG failed to pay her sister's, Miss C's, charges for accommodation for a period when she was entitled to free aftercare under the Mental Health Act 1983 since 2017. She also complained that Miss C remained in an unsuitable placement with unmet needs for almost two years. Mrs B said the Trust failed to provide her sister with enough mental health support and when acting on behalf of the Council and the CCG. She said the alleged faults had adverse impact on her sister's wellbeing and caused Mrs B avoidable distress. We found fault by the Council and the CCG in the way they stopped paying for accommodation which should have been provided without charge. This led to Mrs B having to support her sister with financial matters and this could have been avoided. Delays by the Trust led to Miss C remaining in an unsuitable placement for longer than she should have reasonably expected without enough mental health support in place. This is likely to have impacted on her wellbeing. To remedy the injustice the authorities agreed to our recommendations and will apologise to Miss C and Mrs B in writing and make acknowledgement payments. They will review their policies and procedures to ensure they are in line with relevant law and good practice. They will also ensure their staff act in accordance with legislation and established good practice.