Summary: There was a delay in authorising the use of a lap belt for Ms Y who lives in a care home and miscommunication by the Council about the issue. This was fault causing Ms Y avoidable distress and time and trouble. The Council has already taken action to minimise the chance of recurrence. It will also apologise and make payments set out in this statement.

Summary: Mrs F complained about the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s care arrangements and safeguarding of her health & welfare and finances. She said as a result she experienced distress and Mrs X’s estate should be reimbursed her care charges. We found the Council at fault for wrongly setting up a direct debit, failing to keep some records, causing delays in progressing deputyship, and how it communicated with Mrs F. There was no fault on other matters complained about. The Council agreed to apologise and make payment to Mrs F to acknowledge the uncertainty its faults caused her.

Summary: Ms X lives in a Care Home and was paying her own fees until she reached the financial threshold. For three months after she reached threshold, the Care Home was overpaid as it received fees from Ms X and the Council. The Care Home refused to refund Ms X. The Care Home has refunded Ms X but her son, Mr Y does not consider the amount is correct. The Ombudsman found the Care Home refunded the correct amount but failed to explain how it calculated the amount, causing Ms X and Mr Y stress.

Summary: Mr Y complains about the Care Provider’s failure to seek timely medical treatment for his wife, Mrs Y, when she had a period of illness in November 2022. We find some delay by the Care Provider which was, in part, caused by poor written records and a lack of handover between staff members. We also find the Care Provider provided conflicting information about Mrs Y’s need for hourly checks through the night. The Care Provider has agreed to complete the actions listed at the end of this statement.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Care Provider’s failure to carry out a mental health assessment when her aunt, Miss A, went into its care home. The complaint is late. And we will not investigate her complaint about how the Care Provider handled Miss A’s finances. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to provide information about care charges. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. We will also not investigate complaints about poor communication. That is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about delay in the Council repairing a lift in her home. She also complains the Council disclosed her personal data to a third party without her consent. This is because the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. In addition, there is another body better placed to consider her complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the council giving wrong information. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is no worthwhile outcome to be achieved.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to reject the complainant’s application for a disabled facilities grant. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions as his financial appointee. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, and he can use his right to request a review from the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaints about Blackpool Borough Council and Lancashire and South Cumbria NHS Foundation Trust. We do not consider an investigation by the Ombudsmen could add to previous investigations by those organisations.

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his wife, Mrs X, about the care provided to her at a residential care home. Mr X also complained about the care charges. We found no fault regarding the care provided to Mrs X but found fault regarding the Council’s care plans and regarding its response to our enquiries. The Council has agreed to provide an apology and a financial remedy to address the injustice identified.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in Mrs X’s family’s case. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils failure to tell Ms B direct payments she receives for providing care to her employer, Mr C, would include his National Insurance contribution and holiday payments. This is because the Council has apologised for the fault, and we are satisfied this remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to stop providing Y with transport, which Mr X alleges was due to racism. This is because the complaint relates to events that took place more than 12 months ago and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to refer the complaint to us at the time. Further, even if we did exercise discretion, we would be unlikely to find fault on with the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council handles Mr X’s finances as a court-appointed deputy. There is not enough evidence of fault or of injustice to warrant us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council bullying and harassing Mrs B, or the reasons why it informed the DWP in 2021 of financial abuse of Mrs B’s finances. We will not investigate the Council’s failure to ensure Mrs B was properly assessed for Continuing Health Care or Funded Nursing Care when she moved into the home in 2019. This is because we could not add to the Council’s response or make a different finding of the kind Ms C wants.

Summary: The Council’s delay progressing Ms X’s application for a disabled facilities grant was fault. This left Ms X without safe and independent access to her kitchen for six months. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms X, and act to improve its services.

Summary: Mrs F complained about the quality of home care from 2M Health & Home Care Services, arranged by the Council, for her late husband. We found fault as the care provider failed to monitor Mr F’s health, or to record or report any concerns and failed to seek medical attention for him. This caused significant distress to Mrs F and also uncertainty about whether the faults led to Mr F’s death. The Council will ensure 2M’s staff are trained and report back the outcome of its quality monitoring. It also agreed to apologise and make a payment but Mrs F said she did not want this.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care provider’s handling of Mrs X’s husband’s care. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care in a nursing home. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s investigations or achieve any different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s safeguarding enquiry following Mrs Y’s injury in a care home. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council investigated the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the financial assessment completed for Mrs X’s father. She is unhappy about the amount her father has been assessed as having to pay towards the cost of his care. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s safeguarding investigation. We could not achieve the outcome Mr X seeks. There is also insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, nor has any fault caused a significant injustice to Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care provided to Mr B during his stay in a care home. This is because further investigation could not add to the Care Provider’s response or make a different finding of the kind Mr C wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council inappropriately insisting it needed to be Miss A’s financial appointee and refusing to allow someone from Miss A’s close support network to be her financial appointee. This is because the matter has been considered at Court .

Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council managed Mrs X’s discharge from hospital.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council dealt with the care and support needs assessment for his mother, Mrs Y. He also complained about how the Council dealt with the individual carer assessments for two family carers, Carers 1 and 2. There was fault by the Council with how it assessed Mrs Y’s care and support needs. It was at fault with how it dealt with the carers assessments for Carers 1 and 2. The Council was also at fault with its complaints handling process. This caused injustice to Mrs Y and her family. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse her application to renew her blue badge. We discontinued our investigation. That was because events moved on. The Council has a new blue badge application process and awarded Mrs X a blue badge. There was therefore no significant remaining injustice to Mrs X and no worthwhile outcome achievable by further investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. We are satisfied the Council has thoroughly investigated and responded. The Council has accepted any failures in service, apologised, and taken action to improve service and communication. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further.

Summary: We upheld a complaint about ending Mr Y’s care without following the contract, about poor complaint handling, timeliness of visits and a failure to arrange an urgent review. We have made some recommendations to prevent recurrence.

Summary: Miss X complains that the Council delayed in providing a care package for her. The Council is at fault as it delayed in carrying out a Care Act assessment for Miss X which in turn delayed the provision of a care package. The Council also delayed in carrying out an occupational therapy assessment for Miss X. These faults caused distress to Miss X and meant she had to pay privately for care for longer than necessary. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by making a symbolic payment of £200 to Miss X and reimburse her for the cost of the care she paid privately for.

Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her late brother about care provided to him at his home by a Council commissioned care provider. We found fault causing an injustice and the Council has agreed to provide an apology and financial remedy to Mrs X.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council responded to her concerns regarding contact with her adult son. The Council was not at fault.

Summary: There was a delay before the Council informed Miss X of charges for care, after she had said clearly she could not afford to pay. Miss X cancelled the care package immediately she found out about the charges. The Council agrees to acknowledge the delay by waiving the charges.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about events prior to her mother’s death in 2007. This is because there is no realistic prospect of us being able to investigate the matter now. Also, part of the complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in reviewing Mr X’s care needs because the Council has agreed a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care in a residential care home. The Care Provider has investigated, accepted where it went wrong, and acted to prevent future problems. It is unlikely the Ombudsman could achieve anything further.

Summary: Mrs X complained Coulson and Collins Care Home Ltd (‘the Care Provider’) failed to refund an overpayment, incorrectly charged administration fees, and delayed responding to Mrs X’s complaint. The Care Provider was at fault and should apologise to Mrs X and pay her £250 for uncertainty and distress caused. It should also refund the identified overpayment, administration charges and review its service user contract to bring it in line with the Competition and Markets Authorities consumer law guidance (2021).