Cheshire West & Chester Council (20 012 927)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 07-Sep-2021
Summary: Mr X the complainant, complained the Council did not properly consider his late mother's needs when assessing her for a move to a care home resulting in falls in her home. The Council said it had to follow deprivation of liberty procedures because the client said she did not want to move. We found the Council at fault, and it has agreed to apologise, pay Mr X £250, and review its procedures.
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 07-Sep-2021
Summary: The Council has delayed meeting Ms C's adult social care needs, and Mr B's needs as a carer. The Council's communication has been poor. Mr B supports Ms C, but this has a negative impact on their relationship, causing stress and anxiety. Mr B has had time and trouble chasing the Council for information and clarity and feels unsupported. The Council will apologise, make acknowledgement payments to Mr B and Ms C, complete Ms C's care and support review or reassessment without further delay, and remind staff of the importance of clear communication and chasing referrals.
Leicester City Council (20 009 500)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 06-Sep-2021
Summary: The Council failed to fully consider Mr C's challenge to the adult social care financial assessment which determined he should pay around £57 per week. The Council may be fettering its discretion by saying it will not take household maintenance costs into account and has not evidenced it has considered any impact on Mr C's wellbeing, despite it being a key principle of the Care Act 2014. This leaves Mr C with uncertainty about whether the Council has made the right decision or whether it should waive the charge in full or in part. The Council should apologise for this and review its decision about Mr C's financial contribution.
Kent County Council (20 013 409)
Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 06-Sep-2021
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not properly support her and her family when her late husband was discharged from hospital. There was no fault by the Council.
South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (20 012 719)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 03-Sep-2021
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's EHC planning and the decision made not to send him to his preferred college. He says the Council did not involve him in the decision, did not give him a clear explanation as to how it made the decision, or how to appeal the decision. We find some fault and have made recommendations.
Lancashire County Council (21 000 556)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 01-Sep-2021
Summary: Ms X complained the Council refused to consider her complaint about her care act assessment and personal budget from 2017. The Council accepted it had not properly considered Ms X's reasons for not complaining sooner and that she had good reasons. That was fault. The Council has agreed to investigate Ms X's complaint and to remind staff about properly considering late complaints. We consider this a suitable remedy.
London Borough of Haringey (20 010 696)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 31-Aug-2021
Summary: There was fault by the Council as it delayed putting in adequate care and respite care for Miss X's mother for 9 months. A payment of £2000 is a satisfactory remedy to this complaint, to help Miss X during a very difficult time.
East Sussex County Council (20 012 557)
Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 31-Aug-2021
Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it assessed Mr Y's capacity to make decisions about his care and accommodations needs. The Council adhered to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
London Borough of Haringey (20 014 443)
Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 26-Aug-2021
Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his late father, Mr Y. He said the Council failed to assess the risks of Mr Y returning home and did not provide the necessary care and support. He said it did not properly assess Mr Y's mental capacity and this caused unnecessary suffering to Mr Y. It also caused family distress and upset. We found no fault in the Council's actions.
Birmingham City Council (20 009 677)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 25-Aug-2021
Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council reassessed her adult son Mr S's care needs and about its failure to cover the cost of an increase in the care provider's hourly rate. The Council was at fault. It delayed reassessing Mr S and has not shown how the revised budget is sufficient to meet Mr S's needs. It has not backdated the direct payments sufficiently leaving Mr S in debt to the care provider. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X to acknowledge the frustration the faults caused her. It has also agreed to pay the backdated amounts owed to the care provider and Mr S, and to produce evidence to show how the budget is sufficient to meet Mr S's needs.