Summary: Miss B complained about how the Council carried out her social care assessment, the information it gave her, its recovery of direct payments and its refusal to accept her mother as her personal assistant. There is fault in how the Council approached the assessment, how it shared information and set up the direct payments and in how it considered Miss B’s request for her mother to be her personal assistant. Miss B did not miss out on any provision. That is because her mother continued to provide the support. However, it led to Miss B’s mother having to go to time and trouble to pursue the complaint and caused her distress. An apology, payment to Miss B’s mother and arrangements for a new panel to consider her request for her mother to be her personal assistant is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: Ms C complained about the respite care, which the Council had arranged for her (late) mother at a care home. The Ombudsman found there was fault in the way Mrs M’s needs were met at the home, particularly with the way in which the care home responded to her falls and the concerns she expressed about feeling unwell. The Council has agreed to provide an apology and a financial remedy to Ms C for the distress she experienced as a result. It will also ensure the care provider implements the actions needed to address the faults identified.

Summary: Mrs Y complains the Council has not paid the correct direct payments in respect of her disabled son, Mr X. The direct payments stopped due to an administrative error in August 2016. Mrs Y has not managed the direct payment account properly and the Council has not properly audited the account. In order to ascertain whether any money is owed by the Council it should now properly audit the direct payments from when they were first paid.

Summary: Mr X and Mrs X complain about the Council’s handling of safeguarding issues regarding their father. They complain the Council told them their father was subject to a protection order, that the Council’s assessment of their father’s care and support needs were dismissive, and that the Council’s communication with them was poor. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council’s actions. The Council has agreed to apologise and make service improvements.

Summary: Mrs X complains Heart to Heart Home Care Agency failed to invoice her properly, cancelled her care without notice and did not respond to her complaint. Mrs X is correct on all three points. The Care Provider needs to apologise, cancel any outstanding charges, pay financial redress and consider what action to take to prevent similar problems from happening.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council is charging too much for the care it provides and she cannot afford to pay the amount demanded. The Council has correctly assessed her income and properly considered all her disability related expenditure. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council has completed Miss X’s financial assessment.

Summary: The complaint is about how the Council investigated safeguarding concerns in a nursing home where Mr C lived. There was some fault by the Council, causing some missed opportunity and avoidable frustration. The Council has agreed my recommendations to apologise, pay £200, remind the nursing home of incidents it needs to report and change the Council’s procedures and staff training as necessary. I did not uphold other parts of the complaint.

Summary: Mr B complains on behalf of his mother about the actions of the care provider who had been providing services for her. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the complaint because Mr B is taking legal action against the care provider which places the complaint outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: The Council was not at fault in the provision it arranged for Mr X and there was no evidence that residential care would have been more appropriate in 2017. There has been a delay in arrangements for him to move, but his needs are met in his current placement.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s delay of several months completing an assessment and says the assessment was inaccurate. He says this has affected his health conditions. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault and recommends it apologises and pays Mr X £800. The Council has already taken action to prevent similar faults in future.

Summary: The Ombudsman upholds Mrs X’s complaint about Fazakerley House Care Home’s failure to protect her late mother’s possessions. The Care Provider did not follow its own procedures for labelling clothes or keeping records of Mrs Y’s belongings. It also failed to follow its own guidance on cleaning and laundry. This caused injustice to Mrs Y as she had to pay to replace the lost and damaged items. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, the Care Provider will pay £536 to Mrs Y’s estate. It will also apologise to Mrs X and pay her £100 to remedy the frustration it caused her. Finally, the Care Provider will ensure other residents’ files are up to date, personal items are labelled and their laundry is being handled correctly.

Summary: Mr X made complaints on behalf of his mother who has since died. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaints as Mr X has no authority to act as his mother’s personal representative. Mr X also made three complaints on his own behalf. The Ombudsman will not investigate two of them because it is unlikely we would find fault and there is no significant injustice to Mr X. For the third complaint, the Ombudsman finds the Council was not at fault for starting a safeguarding investigation but was at fault for not telling Mr X the outcome. The Council has now apologised for its oversight and any inconvenience caused.

Summary: There was fault in the way the Council prepared Ms C’s discharge from hospital and in its communications with Ms C’s family. The carers were sometimes late and some of the invoices did not reflect the hours that the carers attended. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms C and her family, check whether the invoice for the delivered care is correct and pay half of the invoice.

Summary: Mrs B complains a social worker from the Council visited her mother without a sign language interpreter. She says her mother cannot hear and the situation was distressing for her. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: We have stopped investigating the complaints because we cannot make recommendations against a Care Provider that is no longer trading. Mr A seeks an apology and a review of the Care Provider’s systems and for it to withdraw the threat of legal action. These are not actions we could achieve as an outcome for Mr A.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council assessed Mrs Q for her blue badge renewal. After Mrs Q complained to us the Council renewed her blue badge following a fresh assessment. An investigation by us is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about an application for a Blue Badge because it is unlikely he would find fault by the Council.

Summary: There is no fault by the Council in relation to this complaint about a decision to pay only part of an agreed Disabled Facilities Grant following the death of the applicant before the work was completed.

Summary: The Ombudsman upholds the complaint from Ms X about the delay in assessing her children’s need for adaptations. The Council took too long to allocate an occupational therapist and make a referral to the district council. It also delayed in deciding how much it would contribute to the work. The Council will apologise to Ms X and pay her and her children in recognition of the impact on them all of the delay. It will offer assessments to any other eligible children in the household. The Council will also provide additional training to staff about overcrowding and take action to reduce the time taken to allocate an occupational therapist in future.

Summary: Mrs C was receiving care at home visits from a care provider commissioned by the Council. The care provider incorrectly asked Mrs C to sign its own contract which stated that, if care visits were cancelled with seven days’ notice, charges would not apply. Mrs C cancelled visits on bank holidays when her daughter agreed to provide the care but the Council charged her for care on those days in accordance with its policy. The Council has now agreed to refund the charges.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that Mrs D should move into residential care. This is because the complaint is late.

Summary: There is no fault in the Council charging Mr A for his care as it carried out financial assessments in line with the law and guidance on charging. The Council did not respond to Mr A’s complaint and this is fault which caused Mr A avoidable frustration. To remedy this, the Council will apologise to Mr A within one month of our final decision.

Summary: Mrs X complains that a Gracewell care home (“Gracewell”), wrongly charged her mother an unfair ‘move-in’ fee, among other failings. The Ombudsman has made some findings of fault but not made any finding of fault against Gracewell for charging an allegedly unfair upfront fee. Whether charges like those applied to Mrs X’s account are fair in law is a matter to be considered by the courts. The Care Home does not accept any fault but has made an offer of a good will payment which the Ombudsman considers should remedy any injustice the complainant considers has been caused.

Summary: Mr & Mrs B complain that the Council delayed in making appropriate arrangements for the transition of her child to adult services. I have completed my investigation on the basis that there was fault in the transition process. The Council has agreed to offer a financial remedy to the family.

Summary: Mr X and Mrs Y complain about the Council’s lack of timely transition planning for Mr X when he recently turned 18. The Ombudsman finds the Council failed to put in place suitable respite care for three months. This is not in accordance with the requirements of the law, guidance and the Council’s own policy. The Council has agreed to a remedy for the injustice caused by the Council’s actions.

Summary: Mrs C complains about the care her father, Mr B, received during respite at a care home. Mrs C says staff did not administer all her father’s medication and did not act when his condition deteriorated. The Ombudsman finds fault in the care provided to Mr B. We recommend the Council apologise, pay Mrs C for the uncertainty caused and ensure the provider has updated its policies.

Summary: The Council should not have acted so quickly to withdraw funding from Mrs X without ensuring payment for a self-funded care package could be put in place. It has apologised but should also recognise the additional distress caused to Mrs X’s family by a payment in acknowledgement.