Safeguarding archive 2020-2021


Archive has 106 results

  • London Borough of Croydon (19 014 715)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 10-Dec-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained a residential care home restricted access to his friend. Mr X also complained the Council failed to carry out actions promised in January 2020. Mr X says this is causing him to be pushed out of his friend’s life. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council.

  • London Borough of Hackney (20 004 000)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 09-Dec-2020

    Summary: The Council acted in line with section 42 of the Care Act 2014 when responding to Ms X’s complaints about a personal assistant so there is no fault.

  • London Borough of Enfield (20 000 211)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 07-Dec-2020

    Summary: Mrs B and Mr D complain about the Council’s failure to provide support to Mr C or to properly respond to safeguarding referrals relating to Mr C. A decision has been made that this case meets the threshold for a Safeguarding Adults Review. The Ombudsman has discontinued its investigation because a Safeguarding Adults Review is a more appropriate investigation into this complaint.

  • Cambridgeshire County Council (19 014 212)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 04-Dec-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her father, Mr Y, about the Council’s safeguarding enquiry into the care Mr Y received at Cromwell House Nursing Home. The Ombudsman found no fault in the outcome of the enquiry.

  • North Yorkshire County Council (19 016 669)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 01-Dec-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council prevented him from bringing his mother, Mrs B, home after she was discharged from hospital to a care home. Mr X also complains about the way the Council dealt with a safeguarding allegation made against him. There was no fault in how the Council carried out the safeguarding investigation. The Council provided incorrect information to Mr X about ‘approved’ care providers but this did not cause an injustice. The Council acted without fault when it made a best interest decision that Mrs B would be best cared for in a care home. There was some delay in authorising Mrs B’s deprivation of liberty safeguard applications but this did not cause an injustice.

  • London Borough of Brent (20 005 887)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 01-Dec-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to investigate her concerns about her care provider as a safeguarding matter. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the Council’s actions to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

  • Cumbria County Council (20 002 146)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 23-Nov-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council prematurely referred a safeguarding concern to the police and did not investigate her complaint properly. Mrs X says this caused her distress and endangered her job. There was no fault in the way the Council handled the safeguarding concern and subsequent investigation. The Council was at fault for not following is own complaint procedure, but this did not cause Mrs X an injustice.

  • Sheffield City Council (20 006 208)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 23-Nov-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a visit the complainant received from social services and the police. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

  • London Borough of Hillingdon (19 014 118)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 23-Nov-2020

    Summary: Mr B complains about contacts the Council had with him and his late mother in 2019 because of concerns for her welfare. We do not uphold the complaint finding no fault in the Council’s actions.

  • London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (19 017 426)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 23-Nov-2020

    Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s contacts with him connected to enquiries it made into his mother’s welfare. We do not uphold the complaint finding no fault in the Council’s actions connected to those enquiries. While there was some fault in the Council’s complaint handling we find any injustice has since been remedied by its actions.

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