Safeguarding archive 2019-2020


Archive has 134 results

  • Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (18 019 501)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 25-Feb-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide adequate community care support to Mr Y as a vulnerable person causing distress and the loss of his council tenancy. We found fault as the Council failed to provide an annual support plan, remain in contact with Mr Y when he moved out of the area, transfer his case to the new council, and delayed carry out a financial assessment. But this fault did not cause Mr Y an injustice, so we have completed our investigation.

  • Kent County Council (19 008 152)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 18-Feb-2020

    Summary: There was no fault, based on evidence the Ombudsman has seen, in the Council’s decision to charge Ms C for Council funded residential care or in its conclusion that Ms C was not eligible to section 117 after care. The Council has already upheld Mr B’s complaint that there were errors in Ms C’s records. The Council has agreed to apologise and to pay £100 for the distress caused by the errors.

  • Dorset Council (19 015 835)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 18-Feb-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s involvement in his mother’s care. We will not investigate this complaint as it relates to matters that have been decided by the Court of Protection.

  • Norfolk County Council (19 016 009)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 18-Feb-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has removed his mother into care and will not disclose her location. This is because an investigation is unlikely to find fault. Furthermore, Mr X does not have consent to complain on Mrs X’s behalf and Mrs X has capacity to make her own decisions.

  • Coventry City Council (19 014 845)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 12-Feb-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a safeguarding referral. This is because he is unlikely to find fault by the Council and the complainant has not suffered any injustice.

  • Lincolnshire County Council (19 000 662)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 10-Feb-2020

    Summary: Ms C complained the Council failed to properly consider a safeguarding referral and delayed completing its investigation. The Council failed to follow its procedure when considering the safeguarding concern, failed to document its decision and delayed completing a later investigation. That did not affect the Council’s decision but caused Ms C some distress. An apology and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

  • Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (19 008 424)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 10-Feb-2020

    Summary: Miss X complains about the way the Council handled a report of a safeguarding concern for her grandfather in a care home, and her subsequent complaint. She says it caused unnecessary distress and trauma, and cost her time and trouble. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council.

  • London Borough of Hackney (19 002 845)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 07-Feb-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman has not found fault in the way the Council responded to safeguarding referrals except that there was a delay in the start of one of the enquiries. There is no fault in the Council’s decision to restrict Ms B’s contact with the Council but the restriction should be time limited and subject to review. The Council also did not explain clearly how it considered the relevant guidance in making an ordinary residence decision. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms B and to write to her regarding the restrictions in her communication and its considerations of the ordinary residence decision.

  • Sheffield City Council (19 015 951)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 05-Feb-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not consider Mr D’s complaint the Council failed to protect his parents from his sister. This is because the complaint is late, and there is not a good reason we should exercise discretion to investigate it.

  • Essex County Council (19 016 347)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 03-Feb-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to investigate allegations against him before supporting an application made in the Court of Protection. This is because the complaint is late, and it was reasonable to expect Mr X to raise the matters he has complained about in a court of law.

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