Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Safeguarding archive 2017-2018

Archive has 150 results

  • Derby City Council (17 011 599)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 30-Mar-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation into Mrs Y's complaint about the Council's safeguarding investigation and the removal of two adults in her care. This is because Mrs Y does not have consent to make complaints on their behalf, and decisions regarding their residence were made by the Courts. The Council's safeguarding investigation concluded over two years ago, and any complaint about that is now too old for the Ombudsman to consider.

  • Luton Borough Council (16 014 856)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 28-Mar-2018

    Summary: The complainant is concerned about the circumstances leading to the death of her grandmother in a Bupa Home. The Council, as safeguarding agency, investigated and identified some faults by Bupa. The Council recommended certain actions to improve future practice which Bupa accepted and acted upon. The Ombudsmen have now considered the complainant's remaining concerns and have made additional recommendations for Bupa. The Ombudsmen have therefore completed their investigation and are closing the complaint.

  • Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (17 009 553)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 27-Mar-2018

    Summary: Mrs E complains about the quality of care provided to her uncle by the Council's contracted provider, The Royal Care Home (part of the Crown Care Group). The Ombudsman finds fault as the Council did not investigate the complaints properly. This put Mrs E to unnecessary time and trouble in making her complaint. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to apologise, pay £300 to Mrs E for her time and trouble and carry out a thorough investigation into the allegations around poor care.

  • Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (17 018 733)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 27-Mar-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the welfare of the complainant's relative. This is because we are unlikely to add anything more to the Council's investigation.

  • London Borough of Newham (17 018 054)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 26-Mar-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A's complaint about the Council harassing his uncle, Mr B. This is because it is unlikely he could add to the Council's response or make a different finding of the kind Mr A wants even if he investigated.

  • Nottinghamshire County Council (17 003 579)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 23-Mar-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsmen find no fault in the way a care home and GP practice responded to a resident's declining health, or in the way the home tried to manage the resident's personal care needs. However, the Ombudsmen find fault in way the care home managed the resident's pressure area needs. This caused an injustice. The Ombudsmen recommend an apology and an action plan to address this.

  • North East Lincolnshire Council (17 004 698)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 22-Mar-2018

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the quality of care her grandmother received during a respite care stay, and the way the Council dealt with her concerns. The Ombudsman found the quality of care was not adequate and the Council was at fault causing a risk of harm and distress. However, it was not at fault in the way it dealt with the concerns. It will apologise and waive 50% of her grandmother's fees, pay Mrs X £150 and her mother £50.

  • Darlington Borough Council (17 009 647)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 22-Mar-2018

    Summary: There were faults in the way the Council dealt with safeguarding concerns raised by Mrs Y regarding her late father. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs Y and pay her £500 to acknowledge the uncertainty and distress caused to her. It has agreed to review the way it dealt with the safeguarding enquiry to identify staff training requirements relating to mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions and to ensure any actions identified through the safeguarding process are properly followed up and the outcome recorded.

  • Blackpool Borough Council (17 018 095)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 21-Mar-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A's complaint about the accuracy of the Council's safeguarding minutes. This is because it is unlikely he could add to the Council's response or make a finding of the kind Ms A's wants even if he investigated.

  • Leicester City Council (16 003 729)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 19-Mar-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsmen found no fault with a CCG, Council and Trust in relation to its actions during a safeguarding inquiry. However we found a fault with the record keeping of a care provider, BUPA, and made recommendations for an apology and evidence of service improvement.