Thurrock Council (24 022 910)

Statement Upheld Charging 23-Dec-2025

Summary: The complaint is the Council gave incorrect advice to Mr B which led to him agreeing to move his mother between nursing homes, on the understanding nothing would change in her care and support. But instead the Council carried out an assessment and Mr B’s mother was liable for her care costs. The Council then delayed responding to his complaint and said it had sent a response when it had not. The Ombudsman’s decision is there is no documentary evidence of the Council’s involvement in the move or in giving the family any advice. There was some delay in its carrying out an assessment and responding to Mr B’s complaint. But these did not cause a significant enough injustice to warrant a further remedy.

Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (25 005 166)

Statement Upheld Other 23-Dec-2025

Summary: Mr A complained that a care coordinator, working for an integrated mental health and social care service, failed to support his son to apply for Universal Credit. We have not found fault by either the responsible Council or NHS Trust. However, we have found fault in how both organisations responded to Mr A’s complaint. Neither would accept responsibility for it at first. Both organisations have agreed to apologise, take corrective action and make a financial payment to address the injustice this caused Mr A.

Kent County Council (25 006 254)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 23-Dec-2025

Summary: Representatives for the late Mrs X complained that she did not receive the care and support she should have in a short-term residential care unit operated by Kent County Council and Kent Community Health NHS Foundation Trust. We decided not to investigate the complaint. Mrs X has died, so an investigation would not achieve a remedy for her.

Durham County Council (25 011 077)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Assessment and care plan 22-Dec-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information the Council has recorded or shared. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider data concerns. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s assessment of housing and care needs, it is entitled to rely on recorded data. There is not enough evidence the Council’s actions led to the claimed injustice.

Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (25 011 875)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 22-Dec-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an assessment by the Council’s adult social care department for adaptations to a property. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in the way it made its decision. So, we cannot challenge the decision even though the complainant disagrees with it.

London Borough of Islington (24 009 076)

Statement Upheld Residential care 19-Dec-2025

Summary: On behalf of Mrs X, Mr Y complained about the communication, staff conduct, and quality of care provided by a Care Home commissioned by the Council. Mr Y also complained the Council’s safeguarding investigation did not fully address his concerns. We found the Council took too long to complete its safeguarding investigation. We also found the Council at fault for not considering Mr Y’s concerns in full as part of its safeguarding investigation. This caused avoidable frustration, distress and uncertainty. We also believe Mrs X was exposed to the avoidable risk of harm due to the Council’s faults. The Council has already taken some action to address concerns about the Care Home. To address the remaining injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise and pay a symbolic financial remedy to Mrs X. The Council has also agreed to review the faults identified and confirm to the Ombudsman what action it will take to prevent recurrence.

West Northamptonshire Council (24 019 888)

Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 19-Dec-2025

Summary: Mr X complained about a delay providing his relative Ms Y with additional care and about fault in the financial assessment for her care charge. The Council is at fault. It took too long to make Ms Y’s direct payment available to her after revising her care and support plan to include extra care. The Council made an incorrect statement about Ms Y’s mobility vehicle which caused avoidable distress. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment.

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (25 000 377)

Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 19-Dec-2025

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council completed the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) process and works to his home. Mr X said this impacted his finances and mental health. There was fault in the way the Council delayed making a payment, has not recorded communications and its complaint handling was poor. This distressed Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise and make the financial payment it offered.

Kent County Council (25 003 822)

Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 19-Dec-2025

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of a care provider about the Council’s handling of payments relating to a service user. As part of the complaints process, the Council apologised for causing a delay in increasing payments for the service user from December 2024. It resolved the issue and put steps in place to prevent such delays in future. We found the Council’s response and action to be appropriate, and some parts of Mr X’s complaint related to contractual matters. We have therefore not made any further findings or recommendations.

Cheshire West & Chester Council (25 005 050)

Statement Upheld Charging 19-Dec-2025

Summary: Mr B complained that the Council had sent him invoices for dates when a service had not been provided and he said the invoices were confusing and lacked transparency. The Council has already upheld Mr B’s complaint and we agree there was fault. The Council has agreed to pay a symbolic financial remedy and carry out a service improvement.