London Borough of Lambeth (19 016 507)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 11-Jan-2021

Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain about the way the Council conducted a safeguarding enquiry into injuries to their daughter while she was in respite care. We have upheld parts of their complaint and made recommendations to the Council. The Council has accepted our recommendations, so we have completed our investigation.

Worcestershire County Council (19 009 808)

Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 06-Jan-2021

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to act on a safeguarding concern he raised about patio doors at a retirement village. Mr X also complained about the time the Council took to investigate his concerns and respond to his complaint. Mr X says the patio doors remain unsafe and the delays caused unnecessary distress and frustration. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the actions of the Council in response to Mr X’s safeguarding concerns. There was fault through delays in handling Mr X’s complaint. The Council has already apologised for these delays.

Hampshire County Council (19 019 904)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 21-Dec-2020

Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to properly monitor two homecare agencies it commissioned to provide care to her mother, Mrs C. She also said the Trust’s mental health assessment was poor as it failed to record visible bruising to Mrs C’s face. The Council’s safeguarding investigation could not determine the cause of bruising found on Mrs C’s body after she was admitted to hospital in 2019. The Trust said its officer did not notice any bruising when the assessment was completed. The Council accepted there had been systemic failings, but it could not substantiate the allegation of neglect. We cannot say the Trust was at fault in the way it completed the mental health assessment. There was fault by the homecare agencies commissioned by the Council, but we did not find fault in the way the Council monitored the agencies or in the way it completed a safeguarding investigation. The Council agreed to our recommendation and will arrange for a written apology to be sent to Mrs B for the injustice caused by the systemic failings identified.

London Borough of Lewisham (19 011 275)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 21-Dec-2020

Summary: Ms B said the Council refused to accept her complaint about allegations a care provider made about her despite her making it properly and in good time. She also said the Council failed to involve her in her brother’s care and support arrangements. We found the Council failed to accept and investigate Ms B’s complaint in line with its statutory duties. There was no fault in the way the Council involves Ms B in her brother’s care and support arrangements. The Council has agreed to our recommendations and will apologise to Ms B, make an acknowledgement payment, and remind its officers of the importance of effective complaint handling.

Hampshire County Council (19 017 737)

Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 18-Dec-2020

Summary: We have not found fault in the Council’s decision to start a safeguarding enquiry after it received a safeguarding referral.

Kent County Council (19 015 926)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 17-Dec-2020

Summary: We uphold two of the complaints. The Council is at fault because (1) an officer kept no record of a discharge meeting where what was said or agreed at the meeting is in dispute and (2) the Council did not take enough action to ensure it received a properly completed application to authorise a deprivation of liberty. The fault caused Mrs L and her son Mr K avoidable distress. The Council will apologise and make them symbolic payments to recognise their distress.

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (19 015 678)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 15-Dec-2020

Summary: Mr and Mrs B complained the Council failed to properly consider safeguarding concerns they raised, engage with them or tell them the outcome of its investigation and then made false allegations about them, failed to explain the advocate’s role, harassed them, relied on uncorroborated evidence and delayed responding to their complaints. There is no fault in how the Council handled the safeguarding investigation, no evidence it relied on wrong information and there is no evidence of harassment. The Council failed to properly explain the advocate’s role and delayed responding to complaints. An apology and memo to officers making referrals for advocates is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

Suffolk County Council (20 006 402)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 15-Dec-2020

Summary: The Ombudsman will investigate Mrs Q’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a safeguarding enquiry regarding her mother. This is because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council and we cannot investigate the Police.

North Yorkshire County Council (19 004 552)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 14-Dec-2020

Summary: The complaint is about a safeguarding investigation into allegations of abuse at a council-run care home. There is some fault by the Council which caused avoidable distress. The Council will apologise, carry out reviews of Mr B and Ms C and make a payment to recognise the distress.

Cornwall Council (19 016 592)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 11-Dec-2020

Summary: The Council has already upheld Mr B’s complaint that it should not have started a safeguarding enquiry into concerns raised about Mr B and should not have continued with the enquiry. We agree this was fault and the Council has agreed to pay Mr B £200 to reflect the injustice he suffered.