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.

Availl Huntingdon (24 020 798b)

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.

NHS Humber and North Yorkshire Integrated Care Board (ICB) (25 011 075a)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Mental health services 23-Jan-2026

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that North Yorkshire Council and NHS Humber and North Yorkshire ICB failed to provide her with aftercare following her detention under the Mental Health Act in 2014. This is because a significant amount of time has passed since the events Ms X is complaining about occurred and it would have been reasonable for her to complain to us sooner. We will not investigate her complaint about the actions of an Approved Mental Health Practitioner as there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust (25 005 166a)

Statement Upheld Mental health services 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.

Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (23 020 868a)

Statement Upheld Mental health services 19-Dec-2025

Summary: Mrs X complains about the care and support provided to her daughter after her autism diagnosis. Based on current evidence I have found fault by the Trust and the Council. However, they have accepted this and provided a suitable remedy for most of the complaint. We have recommended the Trust apologises for distress caused by fault relating to a delayed referral for therapy. We have also recommended the Trust acts to ensure safeguards are in place to prevent similar fault in future.