South Gloucestershire Council (25 007 565)

Statement Upheld Charging 01-Jun-2026

Summary: Mrs D complains about the Council’s delays in reviewing her daughter’s care plan, cutting her number of hours of care and support, not increasing a direct payment and delaying a referral for specialist counselling. We uphold the complaint because of some contradictory record keeping and not sending Mrs D some records, causing some uncertainty. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Kent County Council (25 012 016)

Statement Upheld Residential care 01-Jun-2026

Summary: Mrs C complained about the care her father, Mr D received at the end of his life in a Council-funded care home. We have found fault with the Care Provider. In addition to the action already taken to improve the Care Provider’s procedures, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs C, make a symbolic payment and ensure the Care Provider notifies the Council in future of complaints made about the care provided to Council-funded residents.

Telford & Wrekin Council (25 001 925)

Statement Upheld Direct payments 01-Jun-2026

Summary: The Council’s calculation of Mrs X’s contribution towards her care package was incorrect which led it to wrongly tell her she had a debt to pay, the Council failed to carry out a carer assessment for Mrs X’s husband and sent Mrs X communications which were not in accordance with her reasonable adjustments. That caused Mrs X distress, led to her feeling unable to reinstate her care package and left her with uncertainty. An apology, payment to Mrs X, completion of a care review to include a carers assessment, a breakdown of the Council’s calculations for the amount Mrs X overpaid and guidance to officers is satisfactory remedy.

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (25 010 179)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 31-May-2026

Summary: Mrs X complained the council did not safeguard her relative, Mr Y. She also complained the Council did not respond to her complaint. Mrs X said this distressed her and Mr Y was left in an unsafe situation, resulting in harm and hospital admission. There was fault in the way the Council did not consider safeguarding reports and did not respond to Mrs X’s complaint. This frustrated Mrs X and caused her uncertainty. The Council agreed to apologise and make a financial payment.

Sheffield City Council (25 011 974)

Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 31-May-2026

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to manage the family’s expectations about the transfer of staff from care provider A to care provider B. It was also at fault for delay processing the direct payments and delay responding to the complaint. The Council has agreed a financial remedy for the distress this caused to the family.

North Northamptonshire Council (24 019 678)

Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 30-May-2026

Summary: The Council was at fault as it failed to meet Mr X’s eligible unmet social care needs. This caused Ms X avoidable distress because she had to provide informal care and Mr X distress because he missed out on social and community activities which Ms X is not in a position to support him with. The Council will issue an apology, make symbolic payments to reflect the distress, re-contact possible providers and complete the review of Mr X’s care and support plan.

Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (25 003 062)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 28-May-2026

Summary: Ms X complained about the standard of her reablement care after she suffered a stroke. The Council was at fault because the care provider failed to follow its no reply policy when Ms X fell at home. This caused Ms X uncertainty and avoidable distress which the Council agreed to provide a financial remedy for.

Nottinghamshire County Council (25 003 555)

Statement Upheld Residential care 28-May-2026

Summary: Ms X complained about the standard of care Mr Y received during a period of respite care. The Council was at fault because the care provider failed to carry out some of Mr Y’s care in line with the pre-admission agreement, failed to notify the family about its decision-making, failed to keep records of its decision-making, failed to clarify the position on Mr Y’s medication administration, failed to tell the family about redness to Mr Y’s skin, and failed to seek out of hours medical help. This caused Mr Y’s family uncertainty, frustration and distress which the Council agreed to provide a financial remedy for.

Birmingham City Council (25 005 975)

Statement Upheld Charging 28-May-2026

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to offer her mother-in-law a choice of residential care home accommodation and wrongly charged her a top up fee. We found fault by the Council in not offering an alternative placement that did not require a top up fee. We consider the Council’s offer to reimburse some of the top up fees and a payment for time and trouble with an apology and service improvement provides a suitable remedy.

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (25 006 486)

Statement Upheld Residential care 28-May-2026

Summary: Mrs F complained on behalf of her grandmother, Mrs B, about the quality of her care in Mulberry Manor, a council commissioned care home. We found no fault in the care provided to Mrs B. The Council failed to respond to Mrs F’s complaint which caused her some time and trouble. It has agreed to apologise to Mrs F to remedy that injustice and make a service improvement in relation to its complaint procedures.