The LGO considered a complaint against Bristol City Council. The complaint related to the Council’s failure to properly deal with the care of Mrs J, an elderly woman living in a residential care home. The Council failed to monitor whether the placement was meeting Mrs J’s needs. Mrs J who had dementia required a 24 hour care. The LGO found that there was a maladministration in the Council’s reviewing and strategy in relation to Mrs J move to an alternative placement. The communication between the Council and the family was described as poor. The Council also failed to properly consider the circumstances around Mrs J’s move, which led to Mrs’ J son, Mr J contributing to the cost. As a result of the poor service that Mrs J received, both Mr and Mrs J suffered significant distress. The Council agreed to review its action plans and to provide an apology. Further to make a payment of £500 to Mr J in recognition of the distress he had suffered and his time and trouble in pursuing the complaint; pay financial compensation to Mr J equivalent to any contributions that he had made towards his mother’s care costs for the prior February 2009 to October 2009 in recognition of the failings that led to the move to Orchard House; and to make a further financial award to Mrs J of £6,000 in recognition of the Council’s failings in providing a suitable standard of care and in failing to protect her under its safeguarding procedures.
Leeds City Council wrongly kept Ms B from visiting her elderly mother in a care home. By the time the Council completed the assessment as to whether Ms B could visit her mother, her mother suffered a stroke and was unable to recognise or communicate with Ms B and died the next day. The Council agreed to make a full written apology to Ms B and pay for a bench with an inscribed plague in a location of Ms B’s choice. Further the Council agreed to help Ms B to find out where her mother was buried/cremated and to pay Ms B £5,000 in recognition of the distress it caused her.
This is claim brought by Ms B against Kingsmead Care Home Limited. The allegation was regarding the care provider’s failure to carry out a proper pre-admission assessment of Ms B’s mother. In the case the LGO found that the care provided carried out two-readmission assessments and agreed it could care for Ms B’s mother Mrs C. When Mrs C moved to the care home, Mrs C was diagnosed with dementia and her behaviour was not manageable. Therefore, Ms B was asked to find an alternative home for Mrs C , but until this happened the care provider agreed to put in extra care to keep Mrs C safe. The care provider charged for this extra care, without informing Ms B about is extra care charges. Ms B was surprised to receive the invoice for more that the agreed fees. To quickly resolve the complaint, both parties have agreed a refund of some of the fees. The amount of £3,118 was refunded to Mrs C.
The LGO found that Caring Homes Healthcare Group Limited was at fault because it did not do enough to keep Mrs Y safe. The LGO recommended that the care provider apologised to Mrs Y’s daughter, Mrs X, detailing the faults identified in the LGO’s statement and a copy of the apology to be provided to the Ombudsman within one month of the decision; refunded £2,600 to Mrs Y’s estate to remedy the injustice to her and payment (the payment reflected the failure to provide the service she paid for an avoidable risk to her health and well being); ensured that safeguarding policy and procedure, risk assessment police and prosecute, falls prevention and post-falls protocol were up to date; ensured all staff receive training, or refresher training within 3 months of the decision to understand and implement these in their daily work and also to receive ongoing support through regular updates and supervision; and copies of these to be provided to the Ombudsman within 3 months of the decision with evidence of training provided.
This was claim brought against Northumberland Council. Mr Y complained on behalf of her brother Mr X about the way the Council managed his Shared Lives placements. The LGO found that the Council did not act on the information about Mr X’s Shared Lives placements in a timely manner. As a result he was left in a placement with a carer who was new to Shared Lives care (though a qualified social worker) and there was confusion over the future of the placement. The carer handed over some day-to-day responsibility for Mr X to a support worker who stepped outside his remit in terms of Mr X’s finances. There was confusion over whose responsibility it was to ensure Mr X kept his hospital appointments. After an admission to hospital, Mr X had to move to an emergency placement at short notice (where some of his clothes were destroyed) because the first carer was unavailable to have him back and the Council did not seek to delay the discharge for a day. He was left locked in his room for some time at New Year in the second placement. The Council recommended the below:
Within one month of the final decision statement the council should apologise to Mr X and Ms Y for the way it failed to recognise the poor management of the first placement of Mr X;
Within one month of the final decision statement, the Council should also offer a payment of £1,500 to Mr X in acknowledgement that there were failings in the way his placements were managed;
It should also offer £500 to Ms Y acknowledgement of the confusion and mixed messages about Mr X’s placement, and the time and trouble cause to her in making the complaint; and
To review its processes for managing SL placements.
Malcolm Johnson E: firstname.lastname@example.org
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.