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 2018-2019

Archive has 120 results

  • Leeds City Council (17 020 442)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 29-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the care provided to Mr Y and delays with a safeguarding investigation which upheld allegations of neglect and organisational abuse by Amore Elderly Care Limited. She also complains about the lack of suitable care homes and confusion over what care Mr Y needed. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault in the care provided and the delay, but not in the other matters. The Council caused Mrs X and her family much distress, time and trouble and has agreed to pay Mrs X and her sister £750 each, and waive or refund Mr Y's care costs from 1 February 2015.

  • Birmingham City Council (17 018 314)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 29-Mar-2019

    Summary: Ms P complained that a council and NHS Trust took too long to arrange her mother Mrs D's discharge from hospital and did not do so properly. Then, they were forced to accept a care home which was known to provide poor care. Mrs D was neglected and abused there. The council did not respond properly and closed its safeguarding investigation without good cause. The Ombudsmen find that the Council and Trust delayed the discharge, and did not properly consider possible options. They caused the family to believe they had to accept a placement they did not want, or Mrs D would be forced to leave hospital the next week. The council gave them incorrect information about care costs. The council did not properly ensure Mrs D was safe after an alleged assault. The council closed the safeguarding enquiry without investigating properly and ensuring others were safeguarded. The Ombudsmen recommend actions to address this.

  • East Riding of Yorkshire Council (18 005 929)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 29-Mar-2019

    Summary: Ms C complained about the respite care the Council had arranged for her (late) father at a care home. She also complained about the way in which the Council responded when she raised concerns about his care. The Ombudsman decided to uphold the complaint. As such, the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms C for the distress she suffered. It will also pay her a financial remedy for the care she provided to her father and it will share the lessons learned with relevant staff.

  • Kent County Council (18 017 830)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 26-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr B complained on behalf of his mother about the Council's failure to provide information he had requested in relation to her care. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because the information has now been provided.

  • London Borough of Islington (18 015 433)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 22-Mar-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council's use of its safeguarding role. This is because the complaint is made late and there is no good reason to exercise the Ombudsman's discretion to investigate it now.

  • Herefordshire Council (18 009 532)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 22-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr D complains that the Council did not deal with a safeguarding referral about his father, Mr B, because it did not investigate properly, did not consider alternative care options and shared information with the Care Provider before it had completed a safeguarding investigation. There was fault by the Council in how it dealt with a safeguarding review meeting. The Council has already partly upheld Mr B's complaint about this and made recommendations that will prevent the issue happening again. This is sufficient to remedy any injustice caused.

  • Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (18 016 908)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 21-Mar-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A's complaint about the Council's failure to advise him of the outcome of a safeguarding investigation it concluded in 2017. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman

  • Leicestershire County Council (18 011 386)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 20-Mar-2019

    Summary: The Council acted correctly to safeguard Mr C, under the relevant laws. It took proper account of his capacity to make decisions, including who to share information with. The Council delayed confirming the costs of temporary accommodation, and may not have taken account of all relevant information during the financial assessment; it should redo the assessment. The Council failed to provide its final complaint response to Mrs B which left her feeling fobbed off; the Council has already apologised and updated procedures, which was appropriate action in response.

  • Cumbria County Council (18 015 461)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 20-Mar-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council in respect of a resident at the complainant's Care Home. This is because the complainant has started legal proceedings, so the matter is out of the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.

  • Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (18 009 482)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 20-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr C complained the Council failed to properly consider a safeguarding referral, delayed responding to his complaint and failed to address all the concerns he raised. There is no fault in how the Council considered the safeguarding referral. The Council delayed responding to the complaint and did not address all the concerns raised. That caused Mr C frustration and led to him going to time and trouble to pursue his complaint. An apology is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.