Safeguarding archive 2020-2021


Archive has 106 results

  • City of York Council (19 007 394)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 24-Sep-2020

    Summary: There was a five week delay by the Council before a safeguarding complaint was forwarded to the correct Council. This did not affect the outcome of the safeguarding investigation, as this took a further 6 months and found no evidence of abuse or neglect. An apology and review of procedures to ensure this does not happen again remedies the injustice caused by the delay and lack of explanation at a distressing time.

  • London Borough of Lambeth (19 019 513)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 24-Sep-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in 2013 in relation to safeguarding her aunt, Mrs Y. The complaint lies outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because it is late. I see no good reason to exercise discretion to consider this very late complaint now.

  • West Sussex County Council (20 001 266)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 14-Sep-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s delay in advising him of the outcome to its safeguarding investigation into his late mother’s, Mrs C’s fall. This is because the Ombudsman cannot remedy any injustice to Mrs C caused by administrative fault as sadly she is now deceased. The Council has apologised for the delay in informing Mr B of the outcome of the safeguarding enquiry and advised it has put measures in place to ensure it gives timely and appropriate feedback in the future. The Ombudsman is satisfied this remedies the injustice caused to Mr B from the delay.

  • North Yorkshire County Council (19 014 526)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 08-Sep-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of a safeguarding incident relating to her father. The Council was at fault for long delays in its process and for failing to keep Mrs X updated. It will apologise and make a payment to remedy the upset and uncertainty caused by not finding out what had happened, and for her time and trouble repeatedly chasing the Council for information.

  • Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (20 001 532)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 07-Sep-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint that the Council is preventing him from contacting his mother or having information about her. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault, and Mr Q may also be able to make an application to the Court of Protection. Nor will we investigate Mr Q’s concerns about how the Council is treating his mother. He is not authorised to complain on her behalf, and the Police are better placed to consider his concerns.

  • London Borough of Tower Hamlets (19 015 454)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 02-Sep-2020

    Summary: The complaint is made by a representative, with a lasting power or attorney, for the person who the complaint is about. The Ombudsman’s view is there is doubt about whether the representative is a suitable person to make the complaint. So we have discontinued our investigation.

  • Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (19 011 869)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 02-Sep-2020

    Summary: Mr E complained that the Council had not properly responded to his complaint about how the care home addressed negative comments to Miss F and the care home’s response to Miss F’s challenging behaviour. He said the care home’s care plan did not properly address Miss F’s weight gain. He felt the Council should have addressed some of these issues as safeguarding concerns. The Ombudsman has not found fault.

  • Kingston Upon Hull City Council (20 001 934)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 20-Aug-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council’s failure to safeguard her mother, Mrs C from her daughter who is her court appointed Power of Attorney. This is because Ms B can ask the Court of Protection to consider her concerns about whether her sister is a suitable attorney for Mrs C and whether Mrs C should live in a residential care home, and it would be reasonable to do so.

  • Cheshire West & Chester Council (20 001 034)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 20-Aug-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s lack of involvement with her late stepfather, Mr C. This is because any injustice caused to Mr C by fault from the Council’s actions an investigation might uncover, cannot be remedied now. The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mrs B’s concerns about the condition of his property or her share of the equity in the property. This is because Mr C’s accommodation provider is not within his jurisdiction.

  • Durham County Council (20 001 815)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 14-Aug-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s treatment of her father between 2017 and 2018. We will not investigate this late complaint. This is because there is not a good reason Mrs X did not complain to us sooner.

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