London Borough of Brent (20 003 576)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 20-Oct-2020

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s Safeguarding Team and the care Mrs Z received in her nursing home. We cannot achieve the outcome Mr B is seeking. And it would be reasonable for him to go to court about the matter.

Essex County Council (20 003 731)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 19-Oct-2020

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint as it is late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now. Also, the Information Commissioner’s Office are better placed to consider a complaint about data protection than the Ombudsman.

London Borough of Haringey (19 013 636)

Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 16-Oct-2020

Summary: Miss Y complains about the care her late relative, Mrs X, received and says she was excluded from Mrs X’s care planning. She also says Council staff failed to act during a visit in 2019 when Mrs X had suffered bruises and cuts. While the Council made a minor error in its complaint response, I do not find this significant enough to represent fault. I find no evidence of fault in the Council’s care planning and it is not proportionate to pursue Miss Y’s allegations about the visit in 2019.

London Borough of Hillingdon (20 001 933)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 15-Oct-2020

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with safeguarding concerns. This is because the complainant is satisfied with the response he has now had from the Council and the matter he was complaining about has been resolved.

London Borough of Hounslow (20 002 456)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 15-Oct-2020

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not intervene when he reported safeguarding concerns to it, relating to his mother, in 2015. We will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely we could now carry out a meaningful investigation or provide a meaningful outcome for Mr X.

North Lincolnshire Council (20 003 328)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 14-Oct-2020

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about failures in the Council’s safeguarding investigation into her father’s care. This is because the Council has taken appropriate and proportionate action to address the faults identified by the Safeguarding Adults Review and we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.

London Borough of Hackney (19 014 519)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 08-Oct-2020

Summary: There is fault by the Council in its response to Miss X’s safeguarding concern. The Council has partly remedied the injustice by carrying out a retrospective safeguarding enquiry. The Council will issue written guidance to personal assistants and commissioned care providers about the use of supermarket reward cards. This action will minimise the chance of recurrence.

Leicester City Council (19 009 887)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 28-Sep-2020

Summary: Ms Y complained the Council failed to include her in a safeguarding investigation and failed to provide records on request. The Council was at fault for not responding to Ms Y’s request for safeguarding information, however, it provided this following a subject access request so the injustice to Ms Y was not significant. The Council was not at fault for the way it carried out the safeguarding investigation and in its attempts to involve Ms Y in the investigation.

Northamptonshire County Council (19 015 549)

Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 25-Sep-2020

Summary: Mrs B, complains for her adult disabled son, Mr C, about the actions of the Council about his care and safeguarding. The Ombudsman finds no fault by the Council.

City of Doncaster Council (19 007 581)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 25-Sep-2020

Summary: Mr X and Mr Y complained about the care their late wife and mother, Mrs F, received at Northfield Care home (the Care home) during April 2018. This was jointly arranged and funded by the Council and the Clinical Commissioning Group as Section 117 aftercare. The Council and the Clinical Commissioning Group were at fault. The care provided by the Care home to Mrs F was inadequate and it was slow to respond to Mrs F’s pressure sores. The Council was also at fault for delays in carrying out the safeguarding investigation. The Council and the Clinical Commissioning Group agreed to apologise and pay Mr X and Mr Y a total of £500 between them to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty caused by the faults.