NHS Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Integrated Care Board (24 021 800a)

Statement Not upheld Mental health services 24-Feb-2026

Summary: We do not consider Leicestershire County Council acted with fault when it decided certain care homes could meet Mrs D’s assessed needs on discharge from hospital. The Council did not act with fault when it decided she should pay a top-up, despite jointly funding that placement with the NHS Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Integrated Care Board under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act. However, the Council’s communication around the Section 117 top-up arrangement and invoices amounted to fault which caused Mrs D’s daughter, Miss D, inconvenience and stress. But we consider the Council has already remedied that injustice to her.

NHS North Central London ICB (24 007 618a)

Statement Upheld Mental health services 23-Feb-2026

Summary: Mr B complained that the London Borough of Islington, North Central London ICB and North London NHS Foundation Trust did not assess or meet Mrs X’s aftercare needs after she was detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. We find fault with the Council, the ICB and the Trust. They should have completed a comprehensive assessment of Mrs X’s needs when her detention ended, and should have produced a clear plan of how all her needs would be met. The failure to do so has caused confusion, stress and frustration. The organisations have agreed to take action to address the injustice.

North London NHS Foundation Trust (24 007 618b)

Statement Upheld Mental health services 23-Feb-2026

Summary: Mr B complained that the London Borough of Islington, North Central London ICB and North London NHS Foundation Trust did not assess or meet Mrs X’s aftercare needs after she was detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. We find fault with the Council, the ICB and the Trust. They should have completed a comprehensive assessment of Mrs X’s needs when her detention ended, and should have produced a clear plan of how all her needs would be met. The failure to do so has caused confusion, stress and frustration. The organisations have agreed to take action to address the injustice.

Medway NHS Foundation Trust (25 010 177a)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Hospital acute services 20-Feb-2026

Summary: Ms Y complained on behalf of her late father, Mr X, that the Trust and Council failed to assess Mr X properly before he left hospital, that Mr X was transferred to a care home that was not suitable for him and could not meet his needs, and that Mr X sustained an unexplained eye injury. Ms Y also complained the Trust failed to protect Mr X’s dignity. We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint as it is unlikely we would find fault, or add to the responses Ms Y has already received from the organisations.

Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust - Basildon Hospital (24 014 300a)

Statement Upheld Hospital acute services 13-Feb-2026

Summary: I found fault by the Trust in terms of their communication with Mr Y’s family and their planning for his discharge from hospital. This meant Mr Y was discharged without appropriate care in place. The Trust will apologise and pay Mr Y and his daughter, Mrs X, a financial remedy. They will also take appropriate remedial action to prevent similar problems occurring in future.

NHS Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICB (25 008 975a)

Statement Upheld Assessment and funding 10-Feb-2026

Summary: Mr X complained about repeated failures of Hampshire County Council and NHS Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care Board to work together. He complained this caused: a prolonged delay in discharging his wife from hospital; and, his wife to be left without funding for necessary night-time care. We found fault with the Council and the ICB for failing to manage a funding dispute adequately. This caused an avoidable delay in Mrs X’s discharge from hospital which, in turn, caused avoidable stress and frustration. We have not found fault in the way each organisation considered Mrs X’s night‑time needs against relevant eligibility criteria. The Council and the ICB have agreed to take actions to address the injustice their fault caused.

West London NHS Trust Headquarters (25 005 077a)

Statement Upheld Mental health services 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.

NHS North West London ICB (25 005 077b)

Statement Not upheld Mental health services 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.

County Durham & Darlington NHS Foundation Trust (24 012 474a)

Statement Not upheld Hospital acute services 05-Feb-2026

Summary: Mr B complained about how the Council and Trust assessed and planned Ms C’s care, and arranged discharge from hospital. We found fault with the way the Council handled Ms C’s care assessment and hospital discharge, causing distress to Ms C and distress and uncertainty to Mr B. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr B, make a symbolic payment, and make service improvements. We found no fault in the Trust’s actions.

NHS Cambridgeshire & Peterborough ICB (24 020 798a)

Statement Not upheld Mental health services 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.