This month we published decision reports from 20 complaints investigated by the Ombudsman. Thirteen of these were about health services, six about local government and one about a water provider. The outcome of these 20 complaints were

• Fully upheld: 12
• Some upheld: 5
• Not upheld: 1
• Resolved: 2

We made 61 recommendations to public bodies.

Resolving a complaint 

This month, we closed two cases as resolved. These are examples of cases where positive outcomes can be achieved for the complainant without the need for a long or detailed investigation.

We actively seek opportunities to resolve complaints at all stages of our process.

Resolution improves customer experience by providing redress more quickly and helps to rebuild relationships with public bodies.

In one case, a complainant told us they wanted a backdated kinship care allowance as they were the kinship carer for their grandchild. There had been some confusion over which authority was responsible for managing this, as the grandchild had moved from a different area.

When we opened our investigation, we contacted the local authority and listed the outcomes the complainant was seeking. They agreed to award a backdated payment of over £17,000, apologise to the complainant and update their kinship care policy and procedure as a result of learning from this case. 

This is a significant outcome for the complainant, and we welcome the local authority’s commitment to resolution and willingness to engage in reflective learning.

Our published decision reports can be found on our website.

Resources

• Redress Policy 

  While we do not award compensation, we can recommend redress where a financial loss has occurred. However, such circumstances are often limited. 

• Good practice guidance: alternative complaint resolution approaches

  Check out our guidance for examples of when an investigation may not always be the best option.

During June we:

• responded to 50 enquiries
• made 40 decisions
  • 13 community care grants
  • 27 crisis grants
• upheld 7 (54%) of community care grants and 5 (19%) of crisis grants
• we signposted an additional 83 applications to other sources of assistance
  • 55% (46) were calling us instead of their local council in error
  • 17% (14) noted that they had accessibility issues relating to contacting the council as there was no freephone number
  • 20% (17) were from local council liaison contacts seeking advice on the guidance
  • the remaining contacted us prematurely. We signposted them back to their local councils

Training August 2025

We are currently organising three in-person training sessions, scheduled to take place in Aberdeen, Edinburgh, and Glasgow in August 2025. These sessions will focus on enhancing clarity and consistency in communication, as well as effective recording of decisions.

The training, which is designed to be interactive, will include case studies, practical exercises and group discussions. It is aimed at SWF managers and colleagues who are involved in training or coaching. Attendees will be able to use our training materials to then deliver this to their own teams.

We will share full details, including confirmed dates and session content, within the coming weeks. 

Case summaries

We changed several decisions this month due to councils incorrectly assessing the information available during the application and first tier process. 

Case study: Evidence gathering

C applied for a crisis grant after having to pay £300.00 in excess costs for repairs to two mobility vehicles. As a result, they were without money for living costs for them and their disabled partner. 

The council declined the application on the basis that C had already received five awards in the last 12-month period which is more the usual maximum allowed. They did not identify any exceptional circumstances that would allow for an additional award to be made as they assessed that C had applied previously due to car repairs being the reason for the crisis. 

We reviewed the council's file and spoke with C. We reviewed the previous applications and found that, although they mentioned car trouble, the cause of the crisis was spending money on travel costs rather than car repairs. As such, the current application was materially different from previous applications. We considered the application passed all relevant stages of the decision making process. We therefore changed the council's decision and made an exceptional award. 

Recommendations

• We instructed the council to make an award of £277.74 to cover food and utilities until C’s next Universal Credit payment date, based on the recommended daily rate in the guidance.

Feedback for the Council

• Paying for travel costs and having to pay excess insurance costs are materially different reasons for a crisis.
• The decision letters should not refer to fault as this has been removed from the guidance.
• Decision making records should be robust and reflect the reasons for the council's decision.  

We asked the organisation to provide us with confirmation that the award was made within one week.

You can find more examples in the searchable case directory on our website.

England’s housing crisis is deepening, and for Disabled people, its impact is particularly acute.

A new report, released today by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, sheds light on the disproportionate challenges Disabled people face when navigating local authorities’ housing and homelessness services.

With many councils, particularly in London, struggling to meet the rising demand for housing support, some Disabled people are being pushed further to the margins. The report, called “Access Denied”, draws on real-life complaints investigated by the Ombudsman to show the additional barriers Disabled people can - and do - face.

The report follows the stories of three people – drawn from a range of Ombudsman cases – as they navigate a council’s homelessness, housing allocations, and adaptations services. The stories highlight the numerous issues Disabled people encounter, including inadequate needs assessments and incorrect medical assessments, a lack of adaptations, poor communication and delays.

The report kicks off the Ombudsman’s campaign to help council leaders reflect on their practices and make improvements to their housing services for Disabled people.

These include questions for scrutiny, designed to help council leadership examine the services they offer. There will also be separate practical guides and events tailored for housing officers to implement real, ‘on-the-ground’ changes

Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, Ms Amerdeep Somal, said:

“Disabled people often suffer greater injustices when in need of housing and homelessness support, simply because of their disability, but their stories are sometimes overlooked.

“A major factor worsening the crisis is the chronic shortage of adapted or adaptable housing. This scarcity not only limits options for Disabled people but also compounds the significance of council decisions that fail to account for their needs.

“We’re calling on decision-makers at a local level to ask themselves “Does the housing in our area meet the needs of Disabled people, and do we give it the attention it truly deserves?”

“I hope senior leaders will take on board the constructive suggestions we make. We acknowledge the housing crisis is a national issue requiring national solutions, but much of the injustice we see could be avoided. By getting the basics right, councils can make meaningful improvements to the services they offer.”

La ararteko en funciones Inés Ibáñez de Maeztu ha comparecido ante la Comisión de Justicia y Derechos Humanos del Parlamento Vasco para dar cuenta del Informe anual al Parlamento Vasco 2024.

INTERVENCIÓN

Vitoria-Gasteiz, 18 de junio de 2025

El Ararteko ha recomendado al Ayuntamiento de Vitoria-Gasteiz que elimine la exigencia de enviar una copia del DNI por correo electrónico para presentar escritos a través del registro electrónico municipal. Esta práctica, detectada a raíz de la queja de un ciudadano, no se ajusta a la normativa vigente sobre procedimiento administrativo ni a la propia ordenanza municipal.

Según ha concluido el Ararteko, cuando una persona se identifica mediante certificado electrónico cualificado -como los emitidos por Izenpe o el DNI electrónico- no es necesario aportar copia del documento de identidad. La verificación ya se realiza de forma automática y segura a través del propio sistema.

Además, esta institución advierte que esta exigencia puede vulnerar el derecho a no presentar documentos que ya obran en poder de la Administración, así como el principio de minimización de datos personales previsto en la normativa de protección de datos. 

Por todo ello, el Ararteko insta al consistorio a adaptar su sistema de registro a los estándares legales de identificación electrónica y a evitar barreras innecesarias en el acceso a los servicios públicos digitales.