Archive has 181 results
-
Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (21 012 169)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 13-Jan-2022
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an adult safeguarding enquiry. There is not enough evidence any fault by the Council caused Mr X injustice, and we are unlikely to achieve a different outcome, so investigation is not warranted.
-
Redcar & Cleveland Council (21 008 840)
Statement Upheld Safeguarding 10-Jan-2022
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with safeguarding concerns about her son. This is because she is not a suitable person to complain on behalf of her son. There is no fault in the Council not allowing Miss X to attend the safeguarding meeting. The Council has also apologised for the delay in sending Miss X the outcome of the safeguarding meeting and this is a suitable remedy.
-
Birmingham City Council (20 003 987)
Statement Upheld Safeguarding 10-Jan-2022
Summary: The Council delayed dealing with Ms B’s complaints about its actions to safeguard and support her sister and delayed or failed to respond to some of her communications on these points. The Council failed to acknowledge Ms B’s concerns about documents missing in the post, and to refer the potential breach of personal data to the relevant department. We found no fault in the Council’s safeguarding enquiries, or professional decisions it took. To acknowledge the impact of its failures in service the Council will apologise and refer the missing document to the relevant department.
-
Statement Upheld Safeguarding 07-Jan-2022
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s actions after it received a safeguarding referral in respect of his now deceased mother, Ms G. We find the Council was at fault for incorrectly telling the family they could not take Ms G out of respite whilst it completed its safeguarding enquiries. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X for the avoidable distress that caused. However, there is no evidence of injustice to Ms G who wished to remain in respite.
-
Somerset County Council (21 012 468)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 06-Jan-2022
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled Mr X’s complaint. This is because we cannot consider Mr X’s substantive complaint without consent from his grandson and Mr X has not been caused an injustice as a result of the Council’s handling of his complaint.
-
London Borough of Havering (21 011 554)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 05-Jan-2022
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with safeguarding concerns raised regarding Mrs X and her mother. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council. The Information Commissioner’s Office is also better placed to deal with complains about the Council’s refusal to share information with Mrs X about the safeguarding complaint.
-
Swindon Borough Council (21 010 608)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 04-Jan-2022
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint regarding a safeguarding complaint made against the Council after the complainant’s mother had a fall during a care call. This is because the Council dealt with the complaint robustly and therefore investigation would not be able to offer anything further.
-
Nottinghamshire County Council (20 012 341)
Statement Upheld Safeguarding 23-Dec-2021
Summary: Miss A complains the Council did not properly manage her grandmother’s care. The Council did not follow its complaints process because it did not fully respond to Miss A’s complaint. This did not cause Miss A any injustice.
-
Birmingham City Council (20 012 901)
Statement Upheld Safeguarding 23-Dec-2021
Summary: Mr B complained the Trust and the Council delayed his late mother’s discharge from hospital and kept her in hospital against her will on two occasions in December 2019. Mr B said as a result his mother, Mrs C, contracted a hospital acquired infection and this contributed to her untimely death. We found no fault in the way the Trust dealt with Mrs C’s first discharge from hospital. We found fault in the way the Trust and the Council dealt with Mrs C’s second discharge, and this meant she remained in hospital for longer than she wanted. The faults caused avoidable distress and frustration to both Mrs C and Mr B. However, we cannot link the claimed injustice to the fault identified. To put things right the Trust and the Council have agreed to our recommendations and will improve their practice in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005, apologise to Mr B and make an acknowledgement payment.
-
Kingston Upon Hull City Council (21 011 637)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 23-Dec-2021
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how Mr Y was treated in a care home. This because it is a late complaint and there are no good reasons for us to exercise our discretion to investigate.