Summary: The Council was at fault for delay installing the level access shower Ms X needs. The Council was also at fault for significant delay responding to Ms X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise, make payments to Ms X, and act to improve its services.

Summary: The Council is at fault for the way in which it banned Mr & Mrs X from visiting their daughter, Ms Y in her supported living accommodation for almost a year. It failed to investigate allegations against Mrs X fairly and failed to consider the impact of the ban on Ms Y. It also failed to conduct a mental capacity assessment of Ms Y in line with legislation.

Summary: The care home commissioned by the Council failed to keep proper records and failed to carry out a thorough assessment before Mr B was admitted. As a result, it did not identify that Mr B had difficulty using his hands, and he sustained a burn to his leg when he spilled a cup of hot tea. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr B. It will also ensure the care home makes service improvements.

Summary: Mrs X complained about her late husband’s care and the way the staff at the Ashleigh Manor Residential Care Home treated her when she visited him. Mrs X complained the Care Home failed to recognise her status as Mr X’s wife. We found the Care Provider’s failure to keep detailed records regarding Mr X’s care and follow proper process regarding safeguarding concerns and decisions taken in Mr X’s best interest amount to fault. As do the Care Home’s failings in its communications with Mrs X. These faults have caused Mrs X significant distress and upset.

Summary: Mrs F complained on behalf of her daughter about the quality of her supported living care between 2019 and October 2022. I have ended our investigation as the complaint is late and it would have been reasonable for the complaint to have been made sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about care charges and the quality of care they received. This is because the complaint is late and we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her late aunt’s care and support. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council charging his mother for care received in a care home, not telling him about third party top up fees, and for delays in completing an assessment of his mother’s care needs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the claimed fault has not caused any significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care support to a carer. This is because there is not enough injustice to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of a disabled facilities grant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his blue badge application. An investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes.

Summary: Mr D complained how the Council’s care home dealt with his mother when she was a resident. He also complained the complaints handling was poor, and he was not warned about his unreasonable behaviour until receiving a response to his complaint. We find fault with how the care home dealt with Mr D’s mother’s mobility needs. The Council was at fault with how it dealt with Mr D’s complaint, and there was a failure to consider whether to pursue a more informal route before applying a restrictive action for Mr D’s unreasonable behaviour. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: Mrs E complained that the Council took to long to agree to a residential care placement for her mother Mrs F (now deceased) despite her expressed wish to do so due to loneliness, isolation and anxiety over carer visits. We found some fault with the actions of the Council. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs E £300 and improve its procedures for the future.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an adult social care and support plan. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions so we cannot question or criticise the decision the Council has made even though the complainant strongly disagrees.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council sent her an invoice for her mother’s care and support charges despite agreeing not to charge. This is because an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s response to her request for direct payments and related matters. We did not find the Council to be at fault. It responded to her requests for information, additional care and repayment appropriately.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has failed to renew her blue badge despite her condition not changing. Mrs X says this has caused her distress. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for failing to advise why it could not accept information provided by Mrs X. The Council has apologised for this failing which is a suitable remedy.

Summary: Mr X complained about the poor quality of care provided to his late mother, Mrs Y, at Drayton Village Care Centre which caused him distress, and which resulted in him moving Mrs Y to another care home and the subsequent care charges. The care provider was at fault as there was poor care, a failure to refer Mrs Y for funded nursing care and to properly consider whether to charge for the full notice period. The care provider has already refunded two weeks of care costs. It has agreed to make a payment to Mr X to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused to him. It has also agreed to review its procedure to ensure residents are appropriately referred for funded nursing care and to remind staff to refer residents or their representative to the complaints’ procedure where appropriate.

Summary: There is no fault by the Council in its financial assessment for Ms X’s care and support. The Council applied charging rules when carrying out the assessment and any delay was due to Mr X not providing information the Council required. We are satisfied the Council provided general information about charging at the time care and support started.

Summary: Mr X complained about a decision to refuse to class his daughter Ms D’s course as free aftercare under the Mental Health Act 1983. The Ombudsmen did not uphold the complaint. We found no fault in the actions of West Sussex County Council and NHS Sussex Integrated Care Board.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint about the care provided to her father, Mr X, when he was resident in a care home. This is because we consider it unlikely that our investigation would be able to add to the work that has already been undertaken by the care home and Council in response to Mrs Y’s complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the lack of care and support received from the Council’s children and adult social care services. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her direct payments. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a safeguarding referral as there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about information Council employees gave in Court of Protection proceedings about Mr X’s late mother in 2022. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happened in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s safeguarding enquiry after Mrs X passed away following an incident in a care home. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about safeguarding and adult social care support from the Council. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is insufficient information to show Miss X is raising significant new matters different to our recent investigation and it is unlikely we could achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaints about decisions relating to the management of her uncle’s affairs. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons why it could not have been raised with us sooner. There is also insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify further investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the standard of care provided for Mr X which was arranged by the Council. The Council has already taken appropriate action to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X and it is unlikely we would achieve anything further.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Care Provider not replying to his contacts about a placement for his late mother Mrs Y in one of its care homes, nor how it dealt with his complaint. There is insufficient injustice to Mr X or others to warrant an investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X seeks. We do not investigate Care Providers’ complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council refused his direct payments application for a personal assistant. We would be unlikely to find fault with how the Council made its decision.

Summary: Ms X complains about a decision not to detain her son under the Mental Health Act and that professionals completing the assessment did not take information she provided into account. We will not investigate the complaint. There are no indications of fault relating to the assessment. We are also unlikely to achieve more by investigating the information Ms X says she disclosed.

Summary: Mr X complained he was incorrectly discharged from Section 117 aftercare. We found the Trust, the Council and the ICB did not follow the relevant guidance when discharging Mr X from Section 117 aftercare. This caused uncertainty to Mr X over whether he should have received additional mental health support in the period that followed, and whether this may have prevented his health from deteriorating. The Trust, Council and ICB agreed to provide a remedy to Mr X by reassessing his Section 117 needs, and making service improvements.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly consider a disability related expenditure claim for her son, Mr Y. We have found fault in the Council’s actions. We agree with its recent change of mind which said it should have considered the circumstances of the claim more carefully when it made its original decision. This caused avoidable distress and frustration for Miss X and meant Mr Y was expected to pay towards his care and support for a period where he should not have done. To remedy the injustice caused by this fault, the Council has agreed to complete its suggested remedy of an apology and symbolic payment to the family.

Summary: Ms X complains about how the Council handled her application for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) for home adaptations. We have concluded our investigation having made a finding a fault. The Council acknowledged delays in completing the necessary adaptations and failing to communicate effectively with Ms X throughout the process. While the Council has taken some steps to remedy the situation, there was scope to increase its remedy offer. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Summary: Mr X and Mrs Y complain about poor care of their late relative from 2021- 2022 in a Council funded Care Home. We will not investigate. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complaint has been made late and there are no good reasons to explain the delay.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council delayed in paying her father’s care home fees for nine months. This is because the accepted fault has not caused any significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the date the Council used for when his mother Mrs Y’s permanent care began. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in assessing adult social care needs. This is because any delay did not cause a significant enough injustice to justify the Ombudsman’s involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s about her late mother’s care home fees. The complaint is late and we have seen no good reason why Mrs X could not have come to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council invoicing for backdated care charges and its delay completing her mother Mrs Y’s financial assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s assessment to warrant an investigation. We would not achieve a different outcome from investigating the Council’s delay in the financial assessment.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to renew her Blue Badge. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms X’s mother’s stay in a care home in 2021. This is because it does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to investigate.