Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (16 012 384)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 17-Jul-2017

    Summary: We will not investigate further Miss X's complaint on behalf of her mother, Mrs Y, as there is no consent and Mrs Y has capacity to give or withhold it. Even were it otherwise, the Council has acted without fault in following up a safeguarding concern.

  • Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (15 011 704)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 14-Jul-2017

    Summary: The Council was at fault because of contentious and unnecessary comments made by a Best Interests Assessor in completing a DoLS assessment form for Mrs X's sister. But, this fault did not cause great injustice to Mrs X. The Council was not otherwise at fault.

  • North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (17 005 086)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 13-Jul-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A's late complaint about the actions of the Council in 2012. This is because the matters complained of are late and the Ombudsman could not achieve an outcome of the kind Mr A wants even if he investigated.

  • North Yorkshire County Council (16 008 773)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 30-Jun-2017

    Summary: The Council was entitled to decide to take Mr X's property into account in its calculations. It delayed carrying out a financial assessment of Mr X's contribution to his care home fees and delayed responding to his representative's complaint about this. It has agreed to pay Mr X £250 for the inconvenience caused by the delays plus an additional £250 towards the increased costs incurred because of the delays. It should review the way it dealt with Mr X's complaint to identify any lessons to be learnt.

  • Somerset County Council (17 000 894)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 30-Jun-2017

    Summary: The complaint falls outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction as it was made more than 12 months after Ms X first knew of the situation.

  • Essex County Council (17 003 317)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 28-Jun-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about safeguarding measures. This is because the complainant does not have authority to complain on behalf of her cousin.

  • London Borough Of Brent (16 009 059)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 27-Jun-2017

    Summary: Ms X is satisfied with the Council's investigation of her complaint about what it did after her elderly uncle was secretly removed from his extra-care unit by his daughter and taken to Italy. It identified several failings and has taken appropriate action. But it failed to acknowledge the distress these failings caused Ms X or to apologise for them. The Council will do so now.

  • Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (16 014 080)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 23-Jun-2017

    Summary: The Council investigated Ms B's safeguarding alert but failed to properly consider all the evidence when it first closed the alert. It then appropriately reviewed its recommendations after Ms B complained. But the Council should have done this initially and have kept accurate notes about its decision making.

  • Liverpool City Council (17 003 008)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 21-Jun-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of several complaints from the complainant. This is because some of the issues have been previously investigated, some should be directed to the Information Commissioner's Office, and none of the other issues have resulted in significant injustice to the complainant.

  • Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (16 017 071)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 15-Jun-2017

    Summary: The Council has investigated each safeguarding concern about Mrs X's welfare in line with its policy. The Council is not at fault.