Norfolk & Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust (25 008 683a)

Statement Upheld Mental health services 10-Mar-2026

Summary: We found fault by Norfolk County Council and Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust in how they handled Ms X’s section 117 aftercare and her requests to be discharged from mental health services. We also found fault with their delay in arranging a section 117 aftercare meeting for Ms X. These organisations will apologise to Ms X and pay her a financial remedy. They will also take action to prevent similar problems occurring in future.

NHS Norfolk and Waveney ICB (25 008 683b)

Statement Not upheld Mental health services 10-Mar-2026

Summary: We found fault by Norfolk County Council and Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust in how they handled Ms X’s section 117 aftercare and her requests to be discharged from mental health services. We also found fault with their delay in arranging a section 117 aftercare meeting for Ms X. These organisations will apologise to Ms X and pay her a financial remedy. They will also take action to prevent similar problems occurring in future.

NHS Greater Manchester ICB (25 018 027a)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Mental health services 10-Mar-2026

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council and ICB’s decision to charge a top-up fee for care home accommodation. He also complained about the quality of care provided to his mother by health and social care services and the care home. We will not investigate the charging complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault. We will not investigate the complaints about the care provided because the coroner will consider this as part of their inquest. Once the coroner’s inquest is complete, Mr X can ask us to look at this part of the complaint.

Borough Care Ltd (25 018 027b)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Mental health services 10-Mar-2026

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council and ICB’s decision to charge a top-up fee for care home accommodation. He also complained about the quality of care provided to his mother by health and social care services and the care home. We will not investigate the charging complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault. We will not investigate the complaints about the care provided because the coroner will consider this as part of their inquest. Once the coroner’s inquest is complete, Mr X can ask us to look at this part of the complaint.

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.

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.

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.