Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (25 010 452)

Statement Upheld Charging 07-Apr-2026

Summary: Mrs X complained about the financial assessment carried out by the Council for her father Mr Z. She says the Council did not send her the assessment or invoices to her address. She is also unhappy with the complaint handling and debt collection carried out by the Council. She reports the complaint caused her father distress and anxiety. We found the Council at fault, which caused Mr Z injustice. The Council should make payment and apologise to both Mrs X and Mr Z.

London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (25 016 355)

Statement Upheld Charging 07-Apr-2026

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr Y’s charges for care. The Council has already provided a suitable remedy to recognise the injustice caused by fault, and we could not achieve a more meaningful outcome by investigating the matter further.

Lincolnshire County Council (25 018 956)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 07-Apr-2026

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charges the Council says Mrs B owes for her contribution to care costs. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

London Borough of Islington (25 018 339)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 06-Apr-2026

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charges the Council says Mr B owes for the care he received. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Athena Healthcare (SNR) Limited (25 000 798)

Statement Upheld Charging 01-Apr-2026

Summary: Mrs X complained about the charging and care service provided by Athena Healthcare for Miss Y. Mrs X has disputed the charges owed and is unhappy with some care Miss Y received before her death. She says that this caused her added distress while Miss Y was going through end-of-life care. We found Athena Healthcare at fault. It should apologise and refund some of the charges paid.

London Borough of Croydon (25 007 469)

Statement Not upheld Charging 01-Apr-2026

Summary: Mrs Z complained the Council failed to provide evidence to show it is seeking to recover the correct amount from her grandmother’s estate for unpaid care services. There is no fault by the Council as it correctly assessed and charged and notified Mrs Z’s grandmother who did not make any payments for the care received since 2019.

Sheffield City Council (25 015 104)

Statement Upheld Charging 31-Mar-2026

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about poor care provided by a care provider. The Council provided a proportionate remedy so an investigation would not achieve more for Mrs X and Mr and Mrs Y.

Hertfordshire County Council (25 002 954)

Statement Upheld Charging 30-Mar-2026

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council reneged on a promise to waiver costs incurred for her mother’s care in the period before it decided her financial assessment. We do not find the Council at fault for charging for Mrs X’s mother’s care for this period. This is because its decision is in keeping with the relevant statutory guidance. We did find fault by the Council because it raised Mrs X’s expectations that it would not charge her for her mother’s care costs for this period. This caused Mrs X avoidable distress and uncertainty. The Council agreed to apologise and make Mrs X a symbolic payment.

Surrey County Council (25 016 771)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 30-Mar-2026

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to apply a property disregard during his mother’s financial assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council providing inconsistent information during the financial assessment process because this did not cause a significant injustice.

London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (24 015 136)

Statement Upheld Charging 29-Mar-2026

Summary: Mr Y complained that the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames and NHS South West London Integrated Care Board did not pay the rent for his daughter’s specialist accommodation, despite it being part of her section 117 aftercare needs. We found fault with the Council. It managed the process of identifying and securing Miss X’s accommodation and should have included rent, and associated costs, in its costings and should have paid them from the outset. It should not have made the person liable for the rent and expected them to apply for benefits to fund it. This fault caused Mr Y avoidable stress and inconvenience. We have not found fault with the ICB as it did not make the decisions we found fault with.