This was a complaint brought against the City of York Council. Mr P complained that the Council failed to deal properly with safeguarding concerns involving his Nursing Home which resulted in Mr P having to close it down. The LGO found that the Council did not comply with the timescales for completing various stages of an investigation set out in its procedures; there was a lack of direction to the investigation, which set vague tasks such as “continuing the investigation” and unspecific timescales such as “as soon as possible”; the Council failed to provide any records about the January 2014 case conference; and the Council was wrong to suspend placements at the Nursing Home. However the LGO stated that even though there was a fault by the Council, there was not enough evidence to say that the Council’s failures resulted in Mr P having to close his Nursing Home. The LGO recommend that the Council should send an apology to Mr and Mrs P for its failings and to contribute £7,000 towards Mr P’s legal costs.
This was a complaint brought against Essex County Council from a man, on behalf of his late uncle. The allegation was that the Council failed to respond properly when it was alerted to safeguarding concerned his family and a care home had after a woman befriended him. The LGO recommended that the Council should pay Mr P’s estate £4,285.03 which was equal to the unexplained regular withdrawals taken from his bank account between November 2012 and February 2013 as well as to provide the man with a written apology for its fault. Further, the Council paid £150 to the man for the distressed he had suffered and for the considerable time and trouble to which he was put pursuing the complaint.
This was a claim brought against Lancashire County Council which failed to meet Mr C’s and Miss B’s needs over a prolonged period when Mr C went to live with Miss B. The LGO found that the Council failed to provide Mr C and Miss B with care and support, the Council had a statutory duty to meet their needs but failed to do so. The Council also failed to complete a formal view of the care package it provided. As a result Mr C did not receive a suitable care package which was sufficient to meet his eligible needs. The council had further failed to complete written assessments, written support plans and reviews. The Council had also failed to properly consider Miss B’s request to be Mr C’s paid carer. As a result of the above, Miss B experienced stress, strain from her caring role and upset which made her feel depressed. The situation had had major impact on her health and well-being. However the LGO did not consider that the Council failed to safeguard Mr C. The Council agreed the below:
to write separate letters of apology to Mr C and Miss B for its failure to provide them with services over a prolonged period and pay Mr C £2,500 to acknowledge the failure to provide him with services to keep him safe and well for eight months and pay Miss B £1,500 to acknowledge the failure to provide her with services to keep her safe and well for about 11 months and for her time and trouble in pursuing this complaint.
urgently investigate why it has failed to provide Miss B’s mother with services and provide an update to the Ombudsman. It will detail a suitable remedy for Miss B’s mother;
urgently consider Miss B’s request to be Mr C’s paid carer as allowed in exceptional circumstances under the terms of the Council’s direct payments policy. It should also provide the Ombudsman with clear reasons for its decision and communicate its decision to Miss B in writing;
complete the scheduled review of Mr C’s needs without delay and complete a written assessment and support plan. It should ensure Miss B’s carer’s needs are further considered and recorded in writing. It should ensure all documents are signed and dated by officers and provide copies of the assessment and support plan/s to the Ombudsman and Miss B; and
have new procedures in place by April 2015 for its staff about providing written signed care plans to service users.
Mr C, complained on behalf of his deceased brother, Mr E and on behalf of his mother Mrs D against Essex County Council. The complaint was in relation to Mr E’s death in a respite home and the way the Council handled the investigation. The Council agreed to pay £4000 to Mr E’s estate; pay Mrs D £3000 for the delay in resolving the complaint; meet with Mr C and Mrs D to formally apologise and share with them the lessons learnt because of their complaint.
The LGO found maladministration when Essex County Council failed to properly carry out safeguarding procedures in relation to a man with a significant learning disability after he sustained a serious injury while living in a council-funded residential home. The Council agreed to pay £2,500 in recognition of the distress suffered, in not knowing if the cause of the injury could have been discovered as well as to pay £500 in recognition of the pain and distress the injury would have caused. The council also agreed to offer a meeting with the Council's Adult Social Care Manager to provide reassurance about the council's current safeguarding practices.
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.