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 2020-2021

Archive has 106 results

  • Buckinghamshire County Council (19 018 236)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 29-Mar-2021

    Summary: There was no fault by the Council in the way it assessed Mr B's care and support needs, carried out safeguarding enquiries, sought suitable accommodation for Mr B or considered his disability. However, on one occasion it failed to provide Mr B with accommodation when he had nowhere to stay and so he had to sleep in his car. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and to take action to prevent similar failings in future.

  • Northamptonshire County Council (20 012 184)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 25-Mar-2021

    Summary: We cannot investigate Ms C's complaint about the Council's refusal to allow her uncle, Mr D, to move to Jamaica to live with his family. This is because Ms C does not have consent or standing to complain on behalf of Mr D.

  • Leeds City Council (20 002 190)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 24-Mar-2021

    Summary: Ms Y complains the Council breached Mr X's rights to a Private and Family Life and his right not to be discriminated against in the way it carried out a safeguarding investigation, with him as the alleged perpetrator. The Council's failure to inform Mr X of, and involve him in, the safeguarding investigation amounts to fault. As does the failure to offer to refer Mr X for advocacy when the allegations against him were made or when the Council began its safeguarding investigation. This fault has caused Mr X an injustice.

  • Durham County Council (19 019 435)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 17-Mar-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint. We most likely would not find fault with how Durham County Council responded to her safeguarding concerns. Also, we are unlikely to find fault with how her integrated care team supported her in response to those concerns.

  • City of Wolverhampton Council (20 007 401)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 16-Mar-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to carry out a safeguarding investigation into his concerns about the care home where his late mother had lived. He felt there were errors in how the care home cared for her hearing. We have discontinued the investigation as we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by investigating the complaint now.

  • Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (19 004 532)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 10-Mar-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained about poor care provided to his mother, Mrs Y, as part of a Council-commissioned care package. He also says a later safeguarding investigation was inadequate and the Council managed his complaint poorly. There was poor care which caused Mrs Y some distress. The Council will pay Mrs Y £250 to acknowledge the distress caused. The care provider, Sevacare, and the Council have acted to improve care services in future. The Council considered possible safeguarding issues appropriately but there was delay in its investigation of the concerns about poor care. The Council will pay Mr X and Mrs Y £100 each to remedy the frustration and uncertainty caused by the delay. Sevacare has apologised for its delay responding to Mr X's complaint and that is an appropriate remedy.

  • Oxfordshire County Council (19 018 745)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 10-Mar-2021

    Summary: There is no evidence the Council failed to consider the safeguarding alert properly. Mr X had capacity to make his own decisions about his visitors and who managed his finances.

  • Leicestershire County Council (20 010 428)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 09-Mar-2021

    Summary: We do not propose to investigate this complaint about the Council's interactions with the complainant, including the initiation of a safeguarding enquiry. This is because we are unlikely to be able to evidence fault in the actions of the Council.

  • Norfolk County Council (19 016 522)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 03-Mar-2021

    Summary: The Council acted appropriately when Mrs X raised safeguarding concerns about her mother, Mrs Y. It followed correct procedures in line with the relevant law. We have completed our investigation and have not upheld Mrs X's complaint.

  • London Borough of Ealing (20 003 066)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 02-Mar-2021

    Summary: There was no fault in the care the Council-commissioned care home provided to Ms X's father, Mr Y. The Council also appropriately investigated and responded to Ms X's complaint.