Summary
C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of their client (A). A is elderly and has multiple disabilities. They live in their own flat and have care provided by the partnership. A number of support needs assessments were carried out over several years. The partnership proposed to reduce A's in-person care provision and put in place a telecare system. C complained about this and then complained to our office about a delay in receiving a response to that complaint. Our office made a discretionary decision to progress the complaint in light of significant complaint handling delays. We decided to consider the substantive matters, as well as the complaint handling process.
We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that the assessments of A's needs were reasonable and evidence showed that A's views and those of their carers were taken into account. The partnership were entitled to review care arrangements and consider how they use their resources. The partnership also proposed a trial period, phasing in the changes, which we found to be reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint.
In relation to complaint handling, we found that there were significant delays in responding to C. We noted that the partnership's information about what they would and would not consider a complaint, was unhelpful. We upheld this aspect of C's complaint.
Recommendations
What we asked the organisation to do in this case: Apologise to C and A for the delays in responding to the complaint, giving unhelpful information about what they would and would not consider a complaint and for speculating on whether their complaint handling failings had caused detriment or injustice to the complainant. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
In relation to complaints handling, we recommended: Complaints should be handled in line with the Model Complaints Handling Procedure. Complaints should be responded to within 20 working days or, where this is not possible, adequate explanation must be given alongside a reasonable timescale for the response.
We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.
Related reading
View Decision Report 202000424 as a PDF (26.6 KB) Updated: August 18, 2021