Summary: Mrs X complains the Council’s care provider, Alcedo Care Blackpool, failed to meet her mother’s needs properly during 2022, resulting in medication errors, failing to provide her with hot meals and causing avoidable distress. There were four medication errors. The Council needs to apologise and work with Alcedo Care Blackpool to ensure this does not happen again.

Summary: Mrs X complained about a delay in assessing the contribution her mother, Mrs Y, should pay towards the cost of her care home. The Council was at fault for delays in carrying out the financial assessment and issuing an invoice for the shortfall in the payments made towards Mrs Y’s care. It should apologise, waive part of the invoice and make service improvements.

Summary: The Council failed to properly consider Mr X’s medical conditions when assessing his renewal application for a blue badge. It also failed to undertake a mobility assessment.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mrs K’s residential care charges and about information about care charges from the Trust. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the organisations, and we are unlikely to be able to add anything to the investigations already completed.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s mother’s care charges. Mrs X say the Council delayed in responding to her appeal over the final care charge. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s best interest decision under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and its refusal to explain its reasons for that decision. The Court of Protection is best placed to consider that complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about interest payments related to a refund of NHS continuing healthcare funding. The complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complaint is mostly against an NHS organisation and so more suitable for a different Ombudsman to consider. Even if we were to investigate the Council’s actions, we would be unlikely to achieve the result the complainant wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant does not qualify for a Disabled Tax Exempt Vehicle permit. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about statements a Council social worker made during a court hearing. This is because the complaint relates to events that took place in court and these matters are outside of our jurisdiction.

Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council met Mrs Y’s needs for care and support and how it administered her direct payments. The Council failed to give Ms X or Mrs Y sufficient information about direct payments and failed to review Mrs Y’s direct payments and care plan properly. The Council also failed to offer Ms X a carer’s assessment when it should have. This caused Ms X and Mrs Y stress and uncertainty and meant Ms X had to supplement Mrs Y’s direct payments to cover the cost of her care. The Council will apologise, pay Mrs Y the shortfall in her care costs and carry out staff training.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council wrongly assessed her father, for residential care charges and forced her to sell his house. The Council is at fault for failing to properly apply property disregards. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X, refund her for any overpayments, and pay her £500 for her avoidable time, trouble, and distress. It will also decide whether any property disregards were applicable and remind relevant staff about property disregards.

Summary: Mr X and Ms Y complain the Council failed to deal properly with safeguarding concerns relating to their late daughter, Ms W, causing unnecessary and avoidable distress. We have discontinued the investigation into this complaint until the outcome of an inquest into the circumstances leading to Ms W’s death is known.

Summary: Ms X says carers from a care provider commissioned by the Council verbally abused, neglected and traumatised her and failed to carry out actions in the care plan. Ms X says the care provider withdrew care without notice and the Council delayed putting in place a new care package. There is evidence the care provider did not always carry out the tasks in the care plan, the care provider accepted carers had breached professional boundaries although not that they had verbally abused Ms X, the care provider failed to provide notice when withdrawing the care package and the Council failed to follow the right procedure, although that likely did not affect the delay putting in place alternative provision. The procedural actions carried out by the Council along with an apology and payment to Ms X is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: The Council was not at fault for liaising with the Borough Council to agree what adaptations are necessary for a property to be suitable for Miss X’s Disabled daughter.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council has met his care and support needs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about inaccurate information contained in Ms B’s Care Needs Assessment. This is because the Council has agreed to undertake a further assessment to determine Ms B’s mobility and independence. We could achieve no more than this even if we investigated.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about safeguarding against financial abuse. The Council’s actions have not caused the claimed injustice, so the complaint does not warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider failing to provide care records. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Care Provider dealt with the request to justify our involvement. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide continuity of care for his mother, Mrs Y, when she had to move to temporary accommodation. We find the Council delayed arranging care at Mrs Y’s temporary accommodation. The Council has agreed to apologise and provide a financial remedy.

Summary: Miss L complained the Council failed to assess and meet her late mother, Mrs X’s, care needs, to assess her need for care or to assess her and her stepfather, Mr X’s, support needs as carers. She also complained the Council failed to take action about her safeguarding concerns and failed to respond to her complaint. The Council failed to offer Miss L a care needs assessment or a carer’s assessment, delayed taking action on safeguarding concerns she reported and delayed responding to her complaint. This caused Miss L distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council agreed to apologise, pay Miss L a symbolic amount of £500 and remind staff of its adult social care duties and its complaints procedures.

Summary: There was fault by the Council in the way it calculated Mrs Y’s personal budget for social care because it did not offer a residential care placement. This caused avoidable confusion, time and trouble and a financial loss. The Council will apologise and make payments set out in this statement. It will also review procedures. There was no fault in the way the Council dealt with the personal budget when Mrs Y became eligible for health funding and no fault in refusing to fund additional costs.

Summary: Ms C complained the Council failed to assess the care and support needs of her son which meant he lived in poor conditions for longer than necessary and suffered avoidable anxiety and distress. We have found fault in the delay in completing the assessment but consider the agreed action of a symbolic payment and procedural review provides a suitable remedy in addition to the apology already provided.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we do not consider her a suitable representative for her sister.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a blue badge application. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered Mr X’s two applications. Following the submission of new information by Mr X, the Council has now issued him with a blue badge. Therefore, there is no outstanding injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care fees. This is because it is unlikely we would find the actions of the Care Provider caused the injustice of paying for two care homes for the same period.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the treatment her husband received for alcohol addiction from the provider. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is not about actions that involve, or are connected to, the provision of adult social care.

Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of Mrs B and her two sons. He says the Council’s support plan and budget was not sufficient to meet the needs of the sons, Mr C and Mr D. We find the Council fettered its discretion in deciding to refuse some elements of support. We also find some fault in the way the Council decided the budget and handled Mr X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustices caused by these faults.