Archive has 106 results
-
London Borough of Wandsworth (19 006 729)
Statement Upheld Safeguarding 19-Nov-2020
Summary: There was fault in the way the Council decided to move Mr C to a different placement. The Council did not properly respond to or negotiate with Mr C’s old placement when it asked for a fee increase. The Council did not properly consider whether the new placement could meet Mr C’s needs. The new placement did not always meet Mr C’s needs and did not always follow the care plan and guidance to assist Mr C at mealtimes. The Council has agreed to apologise to the family, pay them £2,000 and make service improvements.
-
Oxfordshire County Council (20 001 898)
Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 18-Nov-2020
Summary: The Council considered the late Mr A’s views properly when it undertook a safeguarding investigation.
-
Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (19 008 138)
Statement Upheld Safeguarding 12-Nov-2020
Summary: Mr B complains on behalf of his mother, Mrs C, that the Council did not properly deal with a safeguarding concern about Mrs C because it entered her home without permission. The Council is at fault because it did not properly complete a safeguarding concern document, did not consider professional guidance, did not fully consider Mrs C’s wishes and entered her property without any legal basis to do so. Mrs C suffered distress. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs C, pay Mrs C £100 for her distress and issue advice to staff.
-
Statement Upheld Safeguarding 10-Nov-2020
Summary: Mrs A has complained about a safeguarding enquiry relating to the care her mother had at a care home. The Ombudsmen will not investigate as the Trust, acting on behalf of the Council, has made a number of improvements and we would not recommend any further action.
-
Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust (20 000 420a)
Statement Upheld Safeguarding 10-Nov-2020
Summary: Mrs A has complained about a safeguarding enquiry relating to the care her mother had at a care home. The Ombudsmen will not investigate as the Trust, acting on behalf of the Council, has made a number of improvements and we would not recommend any further action.
-
London Borough of Ealing (19 020 332)
Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 04-Nov-2020
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take any action following a safeguarding referral which left him at risk. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint further. This is because the incident happened too long ago, issues regarding data handling are better addressed by the Information Commissioner’s Office and there is no evidence this caused a significant injustice to Mr X.
-
Sunderland City Council (19 007 952)
Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 04-Nov-2020
Summary: The Council is not at fault for starting safeguarding procedures or contacting other bodies about its concerns.
-
Hampshire County Council (19 010 704)
Statement Upheld Safeguarding 23-Oct-2020
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Ms D’s complaint about decisions made by the Council during a best interest meeting about her partner, as this is not a matter for the Ombudsman. Whilst there is evidence of fault in how the Council responded to Ms D’s safeguarding concerns and complaint, this did not cause her or her partner an injustice.
-
Leeds City Council (19 010 276)
Statement Upheld Safeguarding 22-Oct-2020
Summary: There was delay by the Council when carrying out a safeguarding investigation and responding to an official complaint. Mrs B was no longer in the care home complained about, so a £250 payment and an apology remedies her daughters injustice of time and trouble pursing the complaint. There is no evidence of inadequate care by the care home. The Council properly carried out the safeguarding enquiry but there was minor fault, in that it was missing details of whether the care homes medication policy complied with the fundamental standards of care.
-
Kent County Council (20 003 812)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 20-Oct-2020
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaints about the Council’s actions regarding his son, Mr C. This is because it is unlikely he would find enough evidence of fault to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.