Safeguarding archive 2019-2020


Archive has 122 results

  • Kent County Council (18 017 171)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 12-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council investigated safeguarding concerns she raised regarding her adult daughter. She also complains about direct payments. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation to give the Council the opportunity to investigate and respond to the complaints.

  • Cheshire West & Chester Council (18 017 802)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 11-Jun-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint about the Council’s failure to investigate care she received from her care provider under its responsibilities for safeguarding adults. This is because he could not add to the Council’s response or make a different finding even if he investigated.

  • Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (19 000 870)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 07-Jun-2019

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged data breach. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider it.

  • Darlington Borough Council (18 013 683)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 31-May-2019

    Summary: Mrs Y complains the Council failed to take appropriate action in 2017 after she reported the alleged financial abuse of her father, Mr X. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault for not conducting a full assessment of Mr X’s capacity after Mrs Y reported concerns. This caused distress to Mrs Y, which the Council has already proposed to remedy with a payment of £500. The Ombudsman finds this remedy is suitable and we do not recommend anything further.

  • Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (18 004 419)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 24-May-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about the Council undertaking a safeguarding investigation, or its decision to consider applying to the Court of Protection for deputyship for his mother’s, Mrs B’s, finances. This is because there is no evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council warranting investigation by the Ombudsman. Mr A can ask the Court of Protection to consider his application for deputyship for Mrs B’s finances.

  • Nottinghamshire County Council (18 016 607)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 23-May-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a safeguarding investigation carried out by the Council. This is because we could not add to its review of the investigation, and could not achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

  • West Sussex County Council (16 017 502)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 21-May-2019

    Summary: Mr B complained about the way the Council handled a Safeguarding Adult Review (SAR), following a serious injury sustained by his brother, Mr C, whilst in residential care. The SAR found significant fault in the Council’s safeguarding investigation. We find fault in the way the SAR report was publicised and the way in which it involved Mr B in the process. This caused Mr B a significant amount of time and trouble and distress pursuing the issues raised. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and Mr C, pay Mr B £1000, tell us and Mr B what improvements it has made to its safeguarding investigation process and arrange a meeting with the agencies involved in the SAR as the SAB originally intended to do.

  • Norfolk County Council (18 015 769)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 17-May-2019

    Summary: There is evidence of fault in this complaint. The Council failed to properly investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a carers actions on the night her husband died. The Council also failed to give sufficient weight to the evidence Mrs X provided. This caused her significant distress.

  • Wiltshire Council (18 013 759)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 14-May-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about the Council’s actions regarding his mother’s care between 2017 and when she was detained under the Mental Health Act in 2018. This is because he could not say Mrs B lacked capacity in 2017 or add to the Council’s response so there is no good reason for the Ombudsman to disapply the law now.

  • Cornwall Council (17 016 634)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 13-May-2019

    Summary: There was fault in the way the Council carried out safeguarding investigations and in its communications with Ms B and Mr C. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms B, to make a payment of £750 to Ms B and to make a service improvement to ensure the same fault does not happy again.

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.

Privacy settings