Summary: Mr X complained about the way Foxley Lodge Care Ltd (the Care Provider) gave notice to the late Mrs Y and did not deal adequately with his complaint about this. We found the Care Provider did not follow the correct procedure in giving notice and did not deal with Mr X’s complaint adequately. This caused Mr X significant distress. We have recommended it apologise and take action to prevent similar faults in future.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about Torbay and South Devon NHS Trust’s decisions not to backdate an increase in Mr Y’s personal budget and the direct payment rate paid to Mr X to January 2015. There is no evidence of fault in how the Trust made its decisions not to backdate the personal budget and direct payment rate to January 2015.

Summary: Miss X complains about the standard of care provided to Mr Y. The Council is at fault as NDH Care Ltd provided inadequate care to Mr Y which caused his admission to hospital and failed to identify and seek medical intervention for pressure sores. The Council also did not give adequate consideration to whether a safeguarding referral indicated Mr Y had received poor care. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X to acknowledge the distress caused to her and ensure the care provider makes service improvements.

Summary: There was fault in the care home’s failure to properly check the identity of an agency care worker and in the failure to carry out the necessary Covid-19 checks. Mr C did not receive the one-to-one care he should have done during the morning. In addition, one of the care workers breached Mr C’s dignity and right to privacy by taking a photo of him. There was further fault in the Home’s actions after it discovered the incidents and in its complaint responses. We recommend the Home apologises, acknowledges the fault and pays £300 to Mr C’s daughter.

Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of Mrs T about the Council’s decision that she deprived herself of assets to avoid paying her care fees. Mr X says as a result, the Council has refused to fund Mrs T’s care fees which has caused Mrs T significant stress, uncertainty and financial loss. Mr X says the process has also affected his wellbeing. There was no evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decisions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about data held by the Council concerning the complainant. This is because the Council has already signposted the complainant to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) which is the appropriate body to consider her concerns.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refer him to the Disclosure and Barring Services (DBS). This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman. Any injustice caused to Mr B would be as a result of the actions of the DBS. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the DBS and Mr B has a right of appeal against the decision if the DBS decides to bar him.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in the way it assessed Mr B’s care and support needs, carried out safeguarding enquiries, sought suitable accommodation for Mr B or considered his disability. However, on one occasion it failed to provide Mr B with accommodation when he had nowhere to stay and so he had to sleep in his car. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and to take action to prevent similar failings in future.

Summary: On the evidence currently available, we will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s safeguarding investigations regarding her daughter and about not having enough respite care. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to accept it now. There is also no evidence Mrs B has complained to the Council about the lack of respite care she is getting.

Summary: We consider East Sussex County Council, Change Grow Live, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust and Old School Surgery missed the opportunity to meet and discuss Ms E’s worsening alcohol misuse and mental health before she died. That has caused Ms E’s family uncertainty. They will not know if a joint meeting would have changed the outcome. The organisations should apologise for that fault.

Summary: We consider East Sussex County Council, Change Grow Live, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust and Old School Surgery missed the opportunity to meet and discuss Ms E’s worsening alcohol misuse and mental health before she died. That has caused Ms E’s family uncertainty. They will not know if a joint meeting would have changed the outcome. The organisations should apologise for that fault.

Summary: There was a delay in the provision of emergency support for Mr B when he moved to a new flat. The Council has agreed to pay £200 to Mr B to remedy the injustice he suffered.

Summary: the complainant complained the Council’s care provider did not provide proper care for her brother and the Council did not properly manage or resolve the difficulties. The Council said it had met with the complainant, undertaken changes and properly reviewed the support plans. We find the Council at fault causing injustice and it has agreed our remedy.

Summary: Mrs D complained about the standard of residential care provided to her late mother, Mrs E, by the Care Provider from March 2017 to August 2019. We find the Care Provider caused an injustice when it failed to provide proper care and treatment to the late Mrs E. In addition to the remedy it has already offered, the Care Provider has agreed to our recommendations to issue Mrs D with a further apology and implement service improvements to ensure the problems do not reoccur.

Summary: The Council failed to follow the correct procedure to identify an appropriate adult to support Mr X when he was arrested. This was fault and led to Mr X being detained longer than necessary.

Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of her mother, Mrs Y, that the Council failed to meet Mrs Y’s needs in line with her care and support plan. The Council was at fault and has agreed to reduce Mrs Y’s fees so that she does not pay for the days where her needs were not met. The Council has also agreed to apologise to Mrs Y and Ms X and pay a financial sum to remedy their distress, and the time and trouble it has taken for Ms X to complain.

Summary: Ms X’s solicitor complained about issues regarding Ms X’s adult son, Mr Y, who has care needs because of his disabilities. We cannot and should not investigate the complaints about assessment of Mr Y’s care needs, care standards and safeguarding issues because of past and current Court of Protection proceedings. We will not investigate the complaint about funding as this is still being considered through the Council’s complaints procedure.

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Miss X’s complaint about the poor quality of care her mother received during the three months she spent at Wulfrun Rose Nursing Home. The care home has agreed to waive the outstanding care fees which remedies any injustice caused.

Summary: There was fault by the Care Provider. There was no written contract for Ms Y’s care and no grounds to increase a previously agreed fee and attempt to backdate that increase. The Care Provider failed to act in line with the law and guidance from the Care Quality Commission and Consumer and Markets Authority. It will apologise to Ms X and make her a symbolic payment of £150 for her time and trouble.

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his late mother about the sort of room she was given in the care home where she lived and the way it assessed her financial contribution to the home’s charges. He considered the room was not suitable and that she had been overcharged. There was fault by the Council in its communication with Mr X for which it will apologise.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council referring an allegation against Mr T to the Office of the Public Guardian. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award a Disabled Facilities Grant and build a drive. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. In addition, the Council is still exploring the issue with the complainant.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s communication with her. This is because the Council has apologised for the failings and any distress the poor communication caused. We could achieve no more than this even if we investigated. We are satisfied the actions taken by the Council remedy the injustice caused to Mrs B.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms C’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to allow her uncle, Mr D, to move to Jamacia to live with his family. This is because Ms C does not have consent or standing to complain on behalf of Mr D.

Summary: Ms Y complains the Council breached Mr X’s rights to a Private and Family Life and his right not to be discriminated against in the way it carried out a safeguarding investigation, with him as the alleged perpetrator. The Council’s failure to inform Mr X of, and involve him in, the safeguarding investigation amounts to fault. As does the failure to offer to refer Mr X for advocacy when the allegations against him were made or when the Council began its safeguarding investigation. This fault has caused Mr X an injustice.

Summary: The Council has said it will re-assess Mrs B’s finances and make a decision on her charges. Mrs B then has a fresh right of appeal/complaint if she does not agree with the outcome of that assessment. We have discontinued the complaint as we do not normally investigate complaints until the Council has had an opportunity to investigate the complaint and to respond to the complaint.

Summary: The Council failed to consider relevant information before refusing to issue a Blue Badge to Mrs X. This is fault. The Council has agreed to apologise, conduct a fresh assessment of Mrs X’s application, and take action to improve its services.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council wrongly refused her application for a Disabled Person’s Parking (Blue) Badge. The Council failed to cross-check its existing records, but there is no evidence this would have affected the outcome of Miss X’s application. The Council reviewed its process for cross-checking existing information when considering Blue Badge applications. We were satisfied with the action the Council took, so we completed our investigation.

Summary: Mr C complained about the way in which the Council arranged his mother’s placement, and how it carried out two safeguarding enquiries. He was also unhappy with aspects of the Council’s financial assessment and a delay in terminating his parent’s tenancy, which caused him distress. We found fault with the way the Council carried out the safeguarding enquiries and caused a delay in terminating the tenancy. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr C and pay a financial remedy for the distress he experienced.