This was a complaint against Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council brought by Mrs X. The complaint related to the Council’s failure to deal properly with the support it provided to Mrs X’s mother, Mrs Y. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and Mrs Y; allocate a senior manager to rebuild the relationship with Mrs X and Mrs Y; allocate social worker, not previously involved, to work with Mrs Y. This included a minimum of four visits over two months until the relationship was rebuilt and Mrs Y was confident in knowing what resources were available to her; to pay Mrs Y £2,000 for the injustice caused to her; to refund amounts of £316 and £391, which were charges raised in error, to Mrs Y; and to pay Mrs X £2,000 for the injustice it caused her.
This was a complain brought by Mrs X against Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council. Miss Y had a moderate learning disability and a mental health disorder. The LGO found that the Council provided Miss Y with inadequate care (and failed to identify that the care was not adequate). Further, the Council did not fully consider Mrs X’s complaints but took the word of the care provider. These faults by the Council caused Miss Y and Mrs X injustice. The LGO recommended the below :
the Council to apologise in writing to Mrs X and Miss Y
the Council to pay Miss Y £2,000 to recognise the distress and lost opportunities caused through the lack of support, inappropriate accommodation arrangements
the Council to put in place arrangements to ensure that in future Miss Y would receive the correct amount of appropriate support to achieve the outcome planned for.
The LGO considered a complaint against Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, brought by Mrs X on behalf of her mother Mrs Y, who at the time of the complaint was deceased. Mrs Y had advanced dementia and needed full support with all aspects of care. The allegation was that the carers engaged by the Council dropped Mrs Y while moving her at home, causing her a broker femur. This breached the care agency’s policies and was neglect. After the fall, the carers failed to seek medical assistance and left an inaccurate care visit record. The above mentioned failures caused significant injustice to Mrs X; the uncertainty, whether the moving of her mother worsened the injury, has caused Mrs X unnecessary additional distress at a time when she had to cope with her mother’s death. The Council has also failed to provide appropriate support for the family after Mrs Y’s discharge from hospital. The Council took far too long to complete the safeguarding investigation. The LGO recommended that the actions detailed in the decision should ensure a better experience for other families in the future. The council agreed to apologise to Mrs X for the failures that have been identified and to pay her £1,500, made up of:
£1,000 for the distress to her feelings caused by the way Mrs Y was treated after the fall;
£250 for the uncertainty she has been left with about how the fall happened; and
£250 for the prolongation of her distress by the delayed safeguarding investigation.
This complaint was made against the Lincolnshire County Council by Mr A, on behalf of his wife who has progressive multiple sclerosis. Mr A complained about the poor domiciliary care service that his wife received from the Council. Following the transition to a new care provider, Mr A noticed that there was a significant deterioration which the Council failed to observe. The carers were late in visiting Mr A’s wife, leaving her alone for 16 hours, without medication, food, water or personal care. The Council had a responsibility to make sure that the new care plan did not have a negative impact on service users. The LGO found that the poor quality of care that Mr A’s wife received resulted in Mrs A being at risk of significant harm as well as experiencing personal distress. The LGO recommended that the Council pay the complainant the sum of £1,500 in recognition of the inadequate care and risk of harm Mrs A experienced in a prolong period, the number of concerns raised by professionals and the distress this has caused to both of them. The Council agreed to provide ongoing work with the care provider to ensure that it performs its contractual obligations, to provide ongoing communication with Mr A to deal with any concerns quickly, to ensure that Mrs A would not experience the same problems, and to take action if the care provided fell below the required standards.
This was a complaint against Midshires Care Limited (the agency). Ms K complained about the service the agency provided to Mr and Mrs D. Mrs D had severe arthritis, limited mobility, and poor sight. Both Mr and Mrs D had dementia. The LGO found fault in the service the above mentioned home care agency provided to Mr and Mrs D. Particularly the LGO found that the agency failed to keep Mr and Mrs D’s care plans up to date, failed to provide an adequate choice of carers in a timely manner, failed to provide hourly client sheets on request, provided inexperienced cares on occasion, failed to provide greater consistency of carers, failed to provide appropriate mouth care to Mrs D, failed to keep adequate records, failed to provide records in a timely manner and failed to provide records to the Ombudsmen. Further the LGO found evidence that the agency caused one of the service users pain and discomfort for several weeks. The agency agreed to write to the complainant to acknowledge all of the fault identified in the LGO’s decision and to further to apologise for the injustice cause to Ms K and Mrs D. The agency also agreed to pay Ms K £1,000 in recognition of the injustice its failings caused and to produce an action plan to show how it will learned lessons from this complain and to show what steps would be taken to prevent recurrences.
Malcolm Johnson E: email@example.com
The contents of this site remains the sole responsibility of Malcolm Johnson as a private individual, and is not endorsed by any business by which he is employed. In particular Malcolm Johnson does not hold himself out as preparing this website for or on behalf of any business by which he is employed, or as having been authorised by any business or employer to do so. This website is produced for the assistance of advocates submitting complaints to local authorities and other organisations. It is not intended to stand as legal advice in any particular case, and should not be relied upon as such. To the extent permitted by law, Malcolm Johnson will not be liable by reason of breach of contract, negligence, or otherwise for any loss of consequential loss occasioned to any person acting omitting to act or refraining from acting in reliance upon the website material or arising from or connected with any error or omission in the website material. Consequential loss shall be deemed to include, but is not limited to, any loss of profits or anticipated profits, damage to reputation, or goodwill, loss of business or anticipated business, damages, costs, expenses incurred or payable to any third party or any other indirect or consequential losses.