London Borough of Bromley (17 019 605)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 12-Aug-2019

Summary: Ms C complains about the process through which the Council carried out a safeguarding investigation into the concerns she had raised about her grandmother’s care. She did not complain about the outcome. The Ombudsman found fault with the way in which the Council carried out the investigation, which resulted in some delays and in distress to Ms C. The Council has already apologised for this and has agreed to share the lessons learned with relevant staff.

Brighton & Hove City Council (18 003 886)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 09-Aug-2019

Summary: The Ombudsmen found fault by the Council in relation to the care provided to a woman when she was resident in a nursing home. The Council agreed to apologise to the complainant and pay him a financial sum in recognition of the distress and uncertainty this caused. The Ombudsmen found no fault with the care provided by the Practice or Trust during the woman’s time in the nursing home and her subsequent hospital admission.

Plymouth City Council (18 017 093)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 05-Aug-2019

Summary: Mr X and Mrs X complain about the Council’s handling of safeguarding issues regarding their father. They complain the Council told them their father was subject to a protection order, that the Council’s assessment of their father’s care and support needs were dismissive, and that the Council’s communication with them was poor. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council’s actions. The Council has agreed to apologise and make service improvements.

North Somerset Council (17 018 786)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 02-Aug-2019

Summary: The complaint is about how the Council investigated safeguarding concerns in a nursing home where Mr C lived. There was some fault by the Council, causing some missed opportunity and avoidable frustration. The Council has agreed my recommendations to apologise, pay £200, remind the nursing home of incidents it needs to report and change the Council’s procedures and staff training as necessary. I did not uphold other parts of the complaint.

Hertfordshire County Council (19 000 214)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 25-Jul-2019

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A’s complaint about the Council’s safeguarding investigation into the care her late father, Mr B, received from his care provider. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council and further investigation by the Ombudsman could not make a finding of the kind Ms A wants. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A’s complaint about the way the Council handled her complaints. This is because where he is not investigating the substantive matter he will not usually investigate how a Council has responded to a complaint about it. That it the case here.

Lincolnshire County Council (19 002 380)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 19-Jul-2019

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint about the way the Council conducted a safeguarding meeting regarding her late uncle’s, Mr B’s, care. This is because further investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to provide a different outcome to that Mr and Mrs A have already received and could not provide them with the outcome they want. The injustice caused to Mr and Mrs A from the actions of the Council ls not significant enough to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (18 008 491)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 19-Jul-2019

Summary: There was no fault in the decision not to conduct a Safeguarding Adults Review because Mr B’s case did not meet the criteria for one. There was fault in dealing with Ms A’s correspondence as a complaint because she had not made one, a delay in signing off a safeguarding enquiry report and confusion caused by the Safeguarding Adults Board reversing its initial decision. When Ms A later complained, the Council took longer to respond than it should have done. The fault caused Ms A and Mr B avoidable distress. The Council will apologise within one month and take action to complete the independent learning review within two months.

Hertfordshire County Council (18 016 972)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 18-Jul-2019

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his father, Mr D. Mr X complained the Council failed to safeguard Mr D following a mental health assessment and as a result he attempted suicide. The Council was not at fault. It considered the Community Psychiatric Nurse’s assessment of Mr D, carried out a needs assessment and arranged a care package. The Council could not have foreseen or prevented Mr D from attempting suicide prior to the care package beginning. The Council was at fault for a delay in handling Mr X’s complaint and for a lack of detail in Mr D’s risk assessment, which did not cause an injustice.

Leeds City Council (17 015 887)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 17-Jul-2019

Summary: The Council was at fault in not taking into account Miss X’s comments in its draft safeguarding report in respect of a care home where her mother Mrs X had been a resident. The Council has apologised and agreed it should take Miss X’s comments into account. I have not asked for any further remedy.

Lancashire County Council (18 013 629)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 16-Jul-2019

Summary: Mrs X complains about the care her father-in-law received at a Care Home run by the Council. He did not receive all the pain relief he was entitled to. The Council needs to apologise, pay financial redress and consider what action the Care Home needs to take to improve its management of medication.