St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (25 014 256)

Statement Upheld Other 17-Feb-2026

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to respond to a complaint via its contractual arrangement’s dispute resolution process rather than its complaints procedure. The Council remedied any injustice caused when it investigated the issues. It is unlikely, on balance, we could achieve more.

Crown Care IV Limited (25 014 735)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 17-Feb-2026

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that she was falsely accused of being racist. This is because it is unlikely a further investigation by this office could add to the response already provided via the care provider’s own investigation of the matter.

London Borough of Islington (25 007 795)

Statement Upheld Other 13-Feb-2026

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to act in line with the Shared Lives agreement following a serious incident involving the service user, Y. We found fault in the Council’s planning and communication with Ms X. This caused Ms X significant distress, and she felt she lost autonomy in her own home. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms X and review its procedures to remedy the injustice Ms X experienced.

AAT Quality Care Agency Ltd (25 017 387)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 13-Feb-2026

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged damage to a door. Complaints about damage to property are for the courts.

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (25 005 077)

Statement Upheld Other 09-Feb-2026

Summary: We find fault by West London NHS Trust and London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham in terms of their delivery of aftercare services to which Mr X was entitled under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983. This fault caused Mr X uncertainty and distress. The Trust and Council will apologise to Mr X and the Trust will pay him a financial remedy. The Trust and Council will also ensure Mr X has an appropriate section 117 aftercare plan in place and an allocated care coordinator.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council (25 012 400)

Statement Upheld Other 05-Feb-2026

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in attending his community treatment order recall. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has already taken, and it is unlikely an investigation by us would add anything further.

Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (25 012 061)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 03-Feb-2026

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council replacing him as the appointee for his sister and the Social Worker’s poor communication. This is because the complaint is late, there are other bodies better placed to consider the complaint, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Peterborough City Council (24 020 798)

Statement Upheld Other 02-Feb-2026

Summary: We do not consider Peterborough City Council acted with fault when it arranged Mr D’s Section 117 aftercare from Availl Huntingdon. While the Council acted with fault when it communicated the end of that care package, it has remedied the injustice to Mr D and his father, Mr C. Also, Availl did not act with fault in the way it supported Mr D.

Liverpool City Council (25 013 331)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 02-Feb-2026

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about subsistence payments the Council made to the complainant. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

London Borough of Havering (25 014 086)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 30-Jan-2026

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council commissioned Care Home managed her late uncle, Mr Y’s, belongings. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons why she did not complain to us sooner.