Key Points
- The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman found Ealing Council at fault in handling an elderly man’s care and charging arrangements, causing avoidable distress and uncertainty for his family.
- The complaint involved Mr Y, who had significant health needs and received home care support from a family carer.
- After Mr Y’s hospital admission in early 2024, the council conducted an initial needs assessment and arranged home care, issuing charging information and starting a financial assessment.
- Family members repeatedly requested a review of the care plan, arguing it was insufficient and residential care should be considered.
- The council agreed to reassess needs after a hospital readmission but failed to complete the review; written requests from Mr X went unanswered.
- The Ombudsman ruled the original assessment was proper, but fault lay in not completing the review and financial assessment despite receiving paperwork.
- The council claimed it halted because the family arranged private residential care, but the Ombudsman stated this did not absolve responsibilities.
- Poor communication and complaint handling included a four-month delay in response and lack of independence in internal processes.
- Ealing Council agreed to perform a backdated financial assessment, refund overpaid care charges to Mr Y’s estate, and issue a written apology.
- Councillor Gary Malcolm, leader of Ealing Liberal Democrats, criticised the Labour-run council for poor service and called for a service redesign.
- An Ealing Council spokesperson apologised for failings, noting support for residents with extra needs is a top priority and committing to improvements.
Ealing, London, January 20, 2026 – The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has upheld a complaint against Ealing Council for faults in managing care and charging for an elderly man known as Mr Y, leading to unnecessary distress for his family. This ruling highlights ongoing challenges in the council’s adult social care services. The family faced uncertainty due to incomplete reviews and delayed assessments.
- Key Points
- What faults did the Ombudsman identify in Ealing Council’s handling?
- Why was the original care assessment deemed proper?
- How did poor communication contribute to the family’s distress?
- What remedies has Ealing Council agreed to provide?
- What has been the political reaction to the Ombudsman’s ruling?
- How has Ealing Council responded officially?
- What is the role of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman?
- Is this an isolated incident for Ealing Council?
- What steps does Ealing Council take for complaints generally?
- How does this case highlight broader care challenges?
What faults did the Ombudsman identify in Ealing Council’s handling?
The Ombudsman determined that while Ealing Council’s initial needs assessment for Mr Y was conducted properly, significant faults occurred afterwards. Family members raised concerns multiple times about the inadequacy of the proposed home care package, advocating for residential care options. As detailed in the Ombudsman’s findings reported by Ealing.news, the council agreed to a reassessment following Mr Y’s hospital readmission in early 2024 but never completed it.
Written requests from another family member, Mr X, received no response, exacerbating the situation. Furthermore, despite receiving necessary paperwork, the council failed to carry out a financial assessment. The council argued it did not proceed because the family opted for private residential care, yet the Ombudsman clarified that this decision did not remove the council’s statutory duties.
Why was the original care assessment deemed proper?
Mr Y, who had significant health needs, was supported at home by a family carer prior to his hospital admission in early 2024. Upon discharge, Ealing Council promptly arranged an initial needs assessment and implemented a home care package. Information on charging was issued alongside the start of a financial assessment process.
According to the Ombudsman’s report, this initial phase met required standards. However, subsequent family requests for adjustments exposed gaps in follow-through. The proposed support was contested as insufficient, prompting calls for residential alternatives, but these were not adequately addressed.
How did poor communication contribute to the family’s distress?
Communication breakdowns formed a core part of the upheld complaint. Family members’ repeated verbal and written pleas for care plan reviews went unheeded, leaving Mr Y’s needs unmet during a critical period. The council’s internal complaint process drew criticism for lacking independence and efficiency.
A four-month delay in responding to the formal complaint compounded the uncertainty. As reported by Ealing.news, these lapses caused avoidable distress, with the family navigating decisions without council input or clarity on charges. The Ombudsman noted that such failures eroded trust and prolonged hardship for vulnerable residents.
What remedies has Ealing Council agreed to provide?
In response to the ruling, Ealing Council has committed to several corrective actions. These include conducting a backdated financial assessment to determine accurate charges. Any overpayments made towards care will be refunded to Mr Y’s estate.
Additionally, the council will issue a written apology to the family, acknowledging the distress caused. These steps aim to rectify the financial and emotional impacts. The Ombudsman’s decision underscores the need for timely compliance.
What has been the political reaction to the Ombudsman’s ruling?
Councillor Gary Malcolm, leader of Ealing Liberal Democrats, spoke to Ealing.news on the matter. As reported by Ealing.news, he stated:
“Liberal Democrats say that Ealing Labour’s priority is not to provide a good service given this example where users are treated so despicably poor. Missing or failed reviewed seems a common approach. A total redesign of the service is needed.”.
This criticism aligns with prior Liberal Democrat concerns over council complaint handling. Historical Ombudsman reports have highlighted similar issues, such as delays in remedies, as noted in earlier coverage.
How has Ealing Council responded officially?
An Ealing Council spokesperson addressed the issue directly to Ealing.news. The spokesperson said:
“We sincerely apologise for our failings in this case. Supporting residents with extra needs is a top priority for us. We have apologised to the people in this case for the avoidable and unnecessary uncertainty and frustration it caused them and our poor communication and complaints handling. We recognise that there is still work to do to ensure all residents receive a consistently high level of service and we are committed to acting on feedback. We are working to ensure our services continue to improve so we deliver the very best experiences for all our service users.”.
This statement reflects acceptance of fault and a pledge for systemic improvements. It emphasises ongoing efforts to enhance service delivery for those with care needs.
What is the role of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman?
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman investigates complaints about councils and adult social care providers in England. It operates independently, assessing whether decisions were made correctly without taking sides. Residents must exhaust council complaints processes first.
In this case, the Ombudsman reviewed evidence from all parties, upholding faults where procedures fell short. Its rulings are final, prompting councils to implement remedies. The service remains free for complainants.
Is this an isolated incident for Ealing Council?
Recent Ombudsman decisions reveal patterns in Ealing Council’s social care handling. For instance, in a January 2026 case, the council was criticised for refusing a Blue Badge application without properly considering appeal evidence, causing uncertainty for Mrs X.
Earlier, in 2022, the Ombudsman expressed disappointment over delays in implementing remedies across multiple cases. A 2025 education-related complaint involved delays in an EHC Plan, leading to lost provision. These instances suggest recurring issues in assessments and responsiveness.
What steps does Ealing Council take for complaints generally?
Ealing Council’s complaints policy aligns with the Ombudsman’s Handling Code. Residents are encouraged to contact services first, with formal stages following. Responses aim for 20 working days, though complex cases extend.
If unsatisfied, complainants can escalate to the Ombudsman. The council handles housing and social care separately where applicable. Leader Councillor Gary Malcolm has previously called for faster resolutions.
How does this case highlight broader care challenges?
This ruling exposes vulnerabilities in transitioning from hospital to home care, particularly for elderly individuals with complex needs. Families often bear burdens when councils falter on reviews. Financial assessments are crucial to prevent overcharges, yet delays persist.
Similar Ombudsman findings elsewhere, like Essex Council’s deferred payment faults, show national patterns. Ealing’s Labour administration faces scrutiny amid opposition demands for redesign. Improvements could involve better staffing and independent oversight.
Councillor Malcolm’s remarks point to “despicably poor” treatment as symptomatic. The council’s apology signals accountability, but sustained change requires monitoring. Residents in Ealing and beyond rely on robust systems to avoid such ordeals.
