Sunderland City Council ordered to pay £500 after complaint over parents' social care

Anita Robson complained to the Local Government Ombudsman over the council’s response to her concerns about the standard of care her parents, Ethel and Tony Haley, were receiving at their care home in autumn 2022 and asked the council to move them to a different home.

She was told a reassessment was needed as their social worker was absent but no assessment took place.

A meeting took place between her, the care home, and the council in late 2022, at which she says the social worker told her Mr and Mrs Haley would be moved. .

Both parents were admitted to hospital in early 2023, Mr Haley with flu and his wife after she became unresponsive.

Mr Haley was returned to the home but became unwell again and was readmitted to hospital.

Mrs Haley remained in hospital, where she died. Mr Haley passed away within a few days.

Anita complained to the council about how it had handled her safeguarding concerns and its social workers’ lack of action and responses but was told it could not respond until a safeguarding investigation had been completed.

That investigation, which reported in summer 2023, found no evidence of neglect or poor care, but it was not until February 2024 that the council responded to say it did not uphold Anita’s complaint over the investigation.

The council did accept it had failed to allocate a replacement social worker soon enough and to keep accurate case notes.

And it agreed this resulted in uncertainty around Anita’s request for a move and and offered a £400 payment.

Anita complained to the ombudsman over the handling of her complaint and asked for the safeguarding investigation to be reopened.

The report cleared the authority’s conduct of the actual investigation, saying: “As I have not found fault in the process the council followed to reach its views, I cannot criticise the merits of its decision.”

But it criticised the time taken to respond to Anita’s complaint: “I have seen no good reason why the Council should take nearly seven months to provide its complaint response. This was therefore fault, which caused her some additional unnecessary distress.”

It concluded that the council should apologise in writing to Anita, pay her the agreed £400 and a further £100 to acknowledge the distress caused by the delay in handling her complaint.

The council was also ordered to provide details of the steps it had taken to ensure adequate sickness cover was provided and case notes accurately recorded.

Anita is pleased the council has been instructed to apologise: “I think they handled it badly,” she said. “They could have handled it so much better.”

A Sunderland City Council statement said: Anita Robson made a complaint to the Ombudsman regarding the council’s handling of safeguarding concerns about her parent’s care home, and we offer condolences about her loss.

“While the Ombudsman found no fault in the council’s safeguarding process, we have acknowledged the delay in providing a response to the complaint and to reallocating a social worker when needed.

“We have apologised for this.”