Summary: Mr X complains that the Council should have disregarded half of his mother’s savings when assessing how much she should contribute to her care costs, because of her financial control over his father. Mr X says half of the savings belongs to his father, and the Council is depriving his father of money that is rightfully his. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault.

Summary: Mr X complained that due to poor wording in the Council’s annual financial review letters, he did not know his relative was being undercharged for her care between 2015 and 2020. He says the Council has since unfairly made a backdated claim on his relative’s estate for an increased contribution to her care costs. The Council is not at fault.

Summary: Mr G complains on behalf of his daughter Miss F, that the Council has failed to recognise Miss F’s costs for a personal trainer and physiotherapy as disability related expenses. The Council has considered the request and evidence provided but decided these are services that should be met by the NHS if required. I do not find fault by the Council in the actions it has taken to reach a decision.

Summary: Miss X complained about how the Care Provider billed her for her mother’s care fees. The Care Provider was at fault for delays in sending Miss X suitable written information on the fees and for delays in contacting Miss X for outstanding debt. This caused her distress. The Care Provider has already remedied this injustice by cancelling around £23,500 in care fees. It has agreed to remind its staff to respond to correspondence promptly to prevent the fault occurring again.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to repay the family for fees incurred for providing extra care when his mother had suspected COVID-19. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with disability related expenditure in the financial assessment process. This is because there is no indication an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about poor transition planning for their daughter, Miss Y, when she moved from children’s to adult support services, including the withdrawal of support services. The Council was at fault for its inconsistent communication about whether it would extend the overnight stays arranged by children’s services beyond age 18, and for flaws in its complaints handling. The Council took appropriate steps to identify support for the family during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Summary: There is evidence of fault in this complaint. The Council reduced Mr Y’s direct payment because it wrongly believed direct payments cannot be spent on social/community activities, which in this case were identified as an eligible need.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about funds due to be repaid to the Council following the closure of his Direct Payment account. This is because it is unlikely we would add to the Council’s response which explains Mr X needs to provide further specific documents which will enable the Council to fully reconcile the account and calculate the amount due.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to withdraw his care and support package. We do not find the Council to be at fault. It carried out a review prior to the change and made a professional judgement that Mr X did not meet the eligibility criteria.

Summary: The Council failed to seek advice from a suitably qualified expert when considering Mr X’s application for a blue badge. This calls into question the reliability of the decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the outcome of her father’s financial assessment in 2016. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and I see no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now.

Summary: The Council’s commissioned care provider failed in its care and treatment of the late Mrs X. The Council investigated and upheld the complaints made by her daughter Mrs A, but was unable to take remedial contractual action as the care provider had already sold the home. The Council agrees that it will now offer a sum in recognition of the distress Mrs A was caused by the failings of the commissioned care provider.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the actions of a care provider acting on the Council’s behalf after her mother (Mrs Y) fell in January 2020 and the Council’s actions following its safeguarding investigation. There was fault in how the Council, and the care provider acting on its behalf responded following the findings of a safeguarding investigation, which caused Mrs X avoidable distress, uncertainty, time and trouble. The Council agreed to apologise further and make a financial payment to Mrs X. We are satisfied this is a suitable remedy, so we completed our investigation.

Summary: Mrs C complains about the Council’s management of her late father’s care home charges. There was delay in providing a full statement of account, and a failure to take action in respect of Mr B’s pension. The Council has agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendation that it reimburse the £218.00 probate charges, in addition to the £262.07 it has already agreed to write off. It has also put in place measures to improve its management of client accounts.

Summary: Mrs C says the Council has failed to correctly assess charges for home support services. The Council’s assessment of Disability Related Expenditure (DRE) is flawed. To remedy the complaint the Council should clearly specify within the support plan eligible emotional and social care needs. I find no fault in the way the Council has considered Ms D’s housing costs.

Summary: Ms B complained about the care provider’s decision to restrict her contact with her sister and the way it communicated with her. The care provider restricted Ms B’s contact with her sister without following a clear procedure or CQC guidance, delayed giving her an opportunity to respond to the allegations made, failed to keep proper records of the investigation, failed to communicate the outcome of the investigation to Ms B properly and prevented her visiting her sister on the day before she died, despite having reinstated visits following mediation. This caused Ms B distress and led to her going to time and trouble to pursue her complaint. An apology and payment to Ms B, along with introduction of a procedure to follow when restricting a family members access to a resident, is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: Mrs Y complained on Mr X’s behalf, about the way the Council dealt with a safeguarding incident affecting him, and said it failed to take appropriate action to protect him from further incidents. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council in failing to take proper care to protect Mr X, causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising and making payments to Mr X and Mrs Y to reflect the distress, time and trouble caused by this fault.

Summary: Ms B complained that visits from her support worker stopped in July 2020 without warning or explanation. She was eventually informed that the support worker was off work unexpectedly, but no alternative arrangements were made until October 2020 following a reassessment. The Council was at fault in failing to inform Ms B that her support worker was off work and arrange alternative support. It has agreed to make a payment to Ms B in recognition of the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions as Ms X’s sister’s deputy. This is because the Office for the Public Guardian is better placed to consider Ms X’s concerns and she is able to apply to court to be named as her sister’s deputy alongside the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about lack of care provided to Mr C’s brother, Mr D. This is because neither Mr C nor Mr D have suffered a significant enough injustice to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant does not qualify for a Blue Badge. This is because the Council has agreed to do a face-to-face mobility assessment and reconsider the application.

Summary: Mrs B complained about a funding dispute between the Council and the Clinical Commissioning Group which prevented her daughter from moving to a suitable placement in 2019. On the evidence available now, we found fault by the Council and the Clinical Commissioning Group as they delayed in following their local dispute resolution policy. This impacted on Mrs B’s daughter’s independence and caused avoidable frustration and time and trouble to Mrs B. To put things right the authorities have agreed to apologise to Mrs B and her daughter and make acknowledgement payments to them. The Council and the Clinical Commissioning Group will work together to agree a suitable placement for Mrs B’s daughter and agree funding in line with the relevant laws and their local policies.

Summary: Mrs B complained about information an NHS Trust provided to the Council’s commissioned care home provider when her late father was discharged from hospital in December 2019. She complains a Surgery prescribed antibiotics but failed to send the prescription to the pharmacy. She also said the Home delayed in following up on the medication her father needed, and this contributed to his untimely death. We found the Trust at fault for poor record keeping when it dealt with the discharge, but it improved. Faults in the way the Surgery made an electronic request for medication and the Home’s failure to take follow up action caused delay in the medication being received. The Surgery and the Home also missed an opportunity to report the incident to the Council so it could consider its safeguarding procedures. The authorities have agreed to our recommendations and the Council will monitor the Home to ensure it improves the way it records discharge information and it will provide safeguarding training if necessary. The Surgery will remind its staff of the importance of reporting safeguarding concerns to the Council when dealing with incidents relating to patient safety. The Home and the Surgery will apologise to Mrs B for the missed opportunity which contributed to doubt she has about the events which occurred.

Summary: Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust acted with fault by not including Mrs X’s medication changes to her discharge paperwork. The Trust has remedied the injustice to Mrs X’s son, Dr Y. Also, Liscard Group Practice and Leighton Court Care Home did not contribute to a delay restarting Mrs X’s medication.

Summary: Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust acted with fault by not including Mrs X’s medication changes to her discharge paperwork. The Trust has remedied the injustice to Mrs X’s son, Dr Y. Also, Liscard Group Practice and Leighton Court Care Home did not contribute to a delay restarting Mrs X’s medication.

Summary: A woman complained that a care home had failed to respond to her request for information about her late uncle’s will. But we will not pursue this matter because there are no available records and, as a result, we are unable to carry out a meaningful investigation or achieve the outcome the woman is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Blue Badge because the Council has offered to do a face-to-face mobility assessment.