Thursday, April 16, 2026

New adult social care complaint decisions

A weekly update on adult social care complaint decisions

Please note: our decisions are published six weeks after they are issued to councils, care providers and the person who has made the complaint. The cases below reflect the caselaw and guidance available at the time of issue and the individual circumstances of each case.

London Borough of Bromley (24 023 042)

Summary: We upheld a complaint made on behalf of Mr C, finding the Council delayed in carrying out an assessment of his social care needs. It also communicated poorly with him and his representative at times, while he waited for the assessment to begin. This caused injustice to Mr C as he did not receive the care and support he needed and he experienced unnecessary distress. The Council has accepted these findings and at the end of this statement we set out action it agreed to take to remedy that injustice and improve its service.

Surrey County Council (25 001 690)

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his care and support needs. The Council was at fault for giving incorrect information about Mr X’s future rent payments. This caused Mr X uncertainty. The Council will apologise for this.

Hampshire County Council (25 004 190)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to investigate safeguarding concerns he raised relating to his relative, Y’s hospital discharge in August 2024. The Council was at fault for not reviewing risks assessments relating to Y’s care sooner. However, the Council’s fault did not cause Mr X a significant enough injustice as the Council used other ways to keep Mr X updated.

Nottinghamshire County Council (25 010 499)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint about how the Council acted on safeguarding concerns in relation to her late father. This is because the complaint is late and investigation is unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Leeds City Council (25 013 794)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council refused her application for a blue badge. This is because, at our invitation, the Council agreed to arrange a new walking assessment. We consider this a suitable remedy.

Peterborough City Council (25 014 716)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care at home. This is because the complaint is late. It is also unlikely we would add to the Council’s investigation and remedy given.

Leeds City Council (25 014 727)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a request for a dropped kerb and vehicle crossing. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

London Borough of Hounslow (25 014 982)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X’s Blue Badge application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault, in the Council’s decision, to justify investigating.

Suffolk County Council (25 015 443)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s application for help with care home charges for his late wife. Investigation by us would not be likely to lead to a different or more worthwhile outcome.

Devon County Council (25 016 091)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X’s Blue Badge application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault, in the Council’s decision, to justify investigating.

Gloucestershire County Council (25 017 311)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council suspending his company’s care contract and withholding payments. This is because the law prevents us from doing so. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council sharing information about his company with another party without his consent as there is another body better placed to consider such matters.

Durham County Council (25 000 486)

Summary: Miss Y complained about how the Council delayed providing her mother, Mrs X, with a care package, respite care fees and with aids and adaptations to meet her needs. There were some faults by the Council which caused injustice to Mrs X and Miss Y. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

London Borough of Lambeth (25 001 999)

Summary: The Council was at fault for not meeting Mr Y’s assessed care and support needs when it housed him in unsuitable accommodation. The Council was also at fault for its poor communication and complaint handling. It will apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr Y to acknowledge the distress caused by his unmet care needs and the avoidable frustration and uncertainty he was caused by its faults. It will also take action to prevent the recurrence of the same faults.

Hertfordshire County Council (25 003 341)

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failings when claiming benefits as his appointee and when responding to his complaint. We found fault with the Council. This fault caused injustice to Mr X. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a payment to recognise his financial loss. The Council has also agreed to carry out some service improvements.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (25 004 792)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to issue the complainant with a Blue Badge. We understand the Council has now issued a Blue Badge so an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Hampshire County Council (25 008 145)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council unfairly reduced her daughter’s care and support hours. She also said it delayed sending her a copy of her daughter’s care and support plan. We find some fault as the Council failed to complete updated assessments before reducing Mrs X’s daughter’s care and support hours. However, this fault did not cause a significant injustice. The Council was also at fault for its delay in providing Mrs X with a copy of her daughter's care and support plan. It apologised for this and provided a copy when it responded to Mrs X’s complaint. This is sufficient to remedy the frustration caused. We do not recommend anything further.

London Borough of Hounslow (25 014 649)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charging for adult social care. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council completed the financial assessment. We cannot challenge the decision, even though the complainant disagrees with it.

London Borough of Lambeth (25 016 170)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a Blue Badge. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Faith Home Care Ltd (25 001 551)

Summary: Mr X complained about care Faith Home Care Limited (the provider) delivered to his father, Mr Y. Mr X said this frustrated him and left Mr Y at risk of harm. Mr X suffered an injustice. Mr Y did not suffer an injustice. The provider should apologise to Mr X.

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 004 010)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council wrongly decided the transfer of her mother, Mrs Y’s, property into Mrs X’s possession was an intentional deprivation of assets to avoid care fees. We discontinued our investigation. That is because Trading Standards are investigating alleged financial abuse of Mrs Y’s money and property. We do not wish to prejudice the ongoing Trading Standards investigation, and we do not consider we could reach a safe, fully informed decision while Trading Standards are still investigating.

London Borough of Hounslow (25 016 152)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a blue badge. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Birmingham City Council (24 022 940)

Summary: Mrs Y complained about the Council’s handling of her request for a disabled facilities grant. We have found fault causing injustice by the Council in failing to: update Mrs Y about, and arrange, the OT assessment within a reasonable timescale; complete a proper assessment of options for meeting Z’s need for a separate bedroom; and give proper consideration to her circumstances before telling her to make a referral for a new assessment. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice by: apologising to Mrs Y; making a payment to recognise the upset caused; and offering a further OT assessment.

North East Lincolnshire Council (25 001 499)

Summary: There was a significant period of time when M lacked the support he was assessed as needing. There was also a lack of communication with the family and an unhelpful complaint response. The Council will now review the way it provides support to M, ensure that changes are progressed in a timely way and offer a payment to recognise the frustration and lack of support.

Bupa Care Homes (CFC Homes) Limited (25 002 410)

Summary: Mr X complained about the quality of care provided to his mother Mrs Y at the care home. On the evidence considered, there were some faults with the care provided. The Care Provider has already taken appropriate actions to address the faults with the quality of Mrs Y’s care. It will also apologise and make a payment to acknowledge the frustration they were caused.

Surrey County Council (25 002 935)

Summary: The Council is not at fault for failing to find alternative supported living accommodation for Ms X’s adult daughter, Ms D, or failing to provide Ms D with an advocate. The Council is at fault for delay reviewing Ms D’s Care Act Assessment, which has caused her distress. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms D. It also agreed to offer to reassess Ms D and refer her to the independent advocacy service.

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (25 003 164)

Summary: We have found fault in the way the care agency provided care to Mr C, which meant his needs were not always fully met. The Council has agreed to apologise and carry out a service improvement.

Cumberland Council (25 005 984)

Summary: Mrs X suffered distress and uncertainty because the Council failed to document its safeguarding decisions properly, failed to communicate with her properly and failed to follow up on a referral for a care line pendant. The Council will apologise to Mrs Y, make a payment to her, provide guidance to officers dealing with complaints and carry out a training session for those working in adult social care.

Surrey County Council (25 006 976)

Summary: We have found fault in the Council’s actions. The Council delayed re-assessing Mr B’s needs for care and support. As a result, there was a delay in Mr B receiving the support he needed. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B, pay a financial remedy and carry out a service improvement.

London Borough of Lewisham (25 009 173)

Summary: Ms X complained the Council wrongly refused her application for a Blue Badge. The Council is at fault for failing to follow its Blue Badge policy when handling an appeal of its decision. This caused Ms X an injustice as the review process was not conducted fairly. However, this injustice has been remedied as the Council has completed a fresh review of its decision. It is not therefore necessary to make any further recommendations.

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (25 012 392)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X’s adult social care charges. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault, in the Council’s actions, to justify investigating.

Warwickshire County Council (25 012 525)

Summary: Based on current evidence, we will not consider Ms C’s complaint on behalf of her partner, Mr D about Universal Care Services UK Limited. There is not enough evidence that any fault by UCS caused Mr D an injustice to justify our involvement.

The Fremantle Trust (25 013 723)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the quality of food in a care home. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Willan House (Stainfield) Limited (25 014 324)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about her late grandmother’s lost rings. This is because we are unlikely to add to the Care Provider’s own investigation and we cannot determine liability for the loss, as this is a matter for the insurer or the courts.

London Borough of Southwark (25 015 221)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to signpost Mr X to its disabled facilities grant. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate.

Cheshire East Council (25 017 240)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council recording false information about his behaviour in a clinical referral. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome he wants and there is another body better placed to consider his complaint.

Durham County Council (24 003 695)

Summary: Mr B complained on behalf of his mother, Ms C, that the Trust did not provide suitable rehabilitation in hospital, that the Trust and Council failed to communicate changes to Ms C’s care plan, and that the Council did not communicate with Ms C about charges for care and wrongly charged her. We found fault with how the Council communicated with Ms C about charges, and that this caused uncertainty and distress to Ms C and Mr B. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment, and improve services. We found no fault in the Trust’s actions.

London Borough of Waltham Forest (24 023 123)

Summary: The Council was at fault. It delayed Mrs Y’s financial assessment and did not clearly explain Mrs Y’s care charges and initially overcharged her. It did not update Mrs Y’s care and support plan when there was a change in care hours agreed and it communicated poorly with a family member, Mrs X. The Council has already recredited payments it should not have charged Mrs Y. It will also apologise and pay a symbolic payment to Mrs X and Mrs Y to acknowledge the frustration, confusion and distress caused. The Council will review its services to prevent a repeat of the faults.

Lancashire County Council (25 004 998)

Summary: There was no fault by the Council, in its handling of a proposed move for the complainant to a residential care facility in Wales. The Council was entitled to decide it would not fund the proposed placement because it involved more support than the complainant needed, and although there was a significant delay in resolving the matter, the evidence shows this was because of disagreements between the Council and the complainant’s family, and not because it allowed the matter to drift. The Council was also entitled to decide the complainant could safely be placed in a mixed-sex facility. We have therefore completed our investigation.

Kent County Council (25 006 524)

Summary: Miss Y complained about the Council’s assessment process and its decision that her mother should move from residential care to extra care housing. She also complained about the Council’s failure to make reasonable adjustments when communicating with her mother. We do not find fault in the Council’s assessment process or its decision. However, we do find fault in the Council’s failure to consistently meet her mother’s reasonable adjustment needs, but we are satisfied this did not cause a significant injustice.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (25 007 544)

Summary: Mrs X complained about failings and delays in the Council’s safeguarding investigation of her mother, Mrs Y’s unwitnessed fall at a care home. We found the delays in the safeguarding investigation and failure to keep Mrs X informed or updated are fault. These faults have caused Mrs X distress and uncertainty.

Derbyshire County Council (25 013 591)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about works related to a Disabled Facilities Grant. This is because the complaint is late, and Miss X can take the matter to court.

East Sussex County Council (25 013 732)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse Mr X’s Blue Badge application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

Luton Borough Council (25 014 224)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to accept a safeguarding referral or how it handled the referral. Firstly we are unlikely to find fault with the Council in accepting a referral. Secondly, Mr X has not been caused any significant injustice by the fault he alleges, in a delay in responding to that referral, and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating.

Cornwall Council (25 014 506)

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council’s financial assessment for adult social care. There is not a good reason for the delay in Mrs X complaining to us.

Cornwall Council (25 014 551)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision Mrs Y deprived herself of assets to avoid paying for care. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Essex County Council (25 014 671)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an email from the Council’s adult social care department which Mr X says was accusatory and threatening. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and any injustice caused is not significant enough to warrant investigation by the Ombudsman.

Essex County Council (25 015 084)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council decided his disabled parking Blue Badge application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating.

Heathers Care Home Limited (25 015 999)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about matters relating to her father, Mr Y’s, placement at the care provider’s care home. This is because she is not the most suitable representative to make the complaint.

HC-One Limited (25 020 289)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the poor care and support the Care Provider’s Care Home provided to his sister, Miss Y, during her respite stay. This is because we could not add to the Care Provider’s investigation and subsequently, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Blackpool Borough Council (25 015 681)

Summary: Mr A complains about the Council’s choice of care home for his brother, Mr B, after he left hospital. We will not investigate this complaint because it is late.


This email was sent to ooseims.archieves@blogger.com using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf of: The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman ·5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT

A Spicy Perspective

Hi there reader --

Here's your weekly round-up of my latest & greatest recipes!

Sommer

Looking for more? Click here to see all my recipes.

Homemade Hash Brown Potatoes

Crispy homemade hash browns, breakfast sausage, and scrambled eggs on a white plate. My homemade hash brown potatoes are my go-to when I’m craving crispy, diner-style hash browns at home. I shred fresh potatoes and fry them in a hot skillet until they’re golden and crispy on the outside and tender on the inside. This easy recipe comes together in about 30 minutes and makes the perfect breakfast […]

White Chocolate Macadamia Nut Cookie Recipe

Close up view of three white chocolate macadamia nut cookies on parchment. My white chocolate macadamia nut cookie recipe is the perfect bakery-style treat I love making for friends and family. These cookies are just as easy as classic chocolate chip cookies, but bake up soft, lightly chewy, and loaded with sweet white chocolate chips and crunchy macadamia nuts. I prefer a lighter, crisp-chewy texture, but you […]

View on A Spicy Perspective

870767 is your Substack verification code

Here's your verification code to sign in to Substack:

This code will only be valid for the next 10 minutes. If the code does not work, you can use this login verification link:

Verify email

Do not share this code with anyone. Do not forward this email. Substack employees will never ask for this code.

104

We are saving your order!

Hi there This is Dr. Josh with UpWellness. I just want to let you know that I've been saving this order for you. When you're ready to purchase you can Return To Your Cart Here what I have set aside for you.

Golden Revive +: 6 Bottles - 65% Off Every 6 Months Quantity: 1

$209.70

FREE e-Book Bundle: 6 Teas that Reduce Inflammation,9 Ways To User Turmeric and 21-Day Turmeric Challenge Quantity: 1

$0.00

No longer want to receive these emails? You can unsubscribe here. UpWellness - 4300 S US Highway 1, Suite 203-208, Jupiter, FL 33477