London Borough of Croydon (20 013 587)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 24-Nov-2021

Summary: Mrs B complains the support she received from the Council while her father, Mr Y, was resident in a care home. Mrs B says the Council did not ensure she was involved in decisions about her father’s care, did not properly communicate with her and did not allocate a social worker as promised. The Ombudsman finds fault in how the Council considered Mr Y’s capacity and communicated with Mrs B around this.

City of Doncaster Council (21 004 684)

Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 23-Nov-2021

Summary: Mrs X complains for her mother Mrs Y, the Council failed to safeguard Mrs Y when she raised concerns about her health and finances. We are discontinuing our investigation into the complaint as it has not been made by a suitable person.

City of York Council (21 009 200)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 22-Nov-2021

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s safeguarding investigation into her concerns about her daughter, Ms C, being bullied. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. It would be reasonable for Mrs B to ask the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to consider her complaint about the Council sharing data she believes it should not have shared.

Brighton & Hove City Council (21 010 282)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 19-Nov-2021

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s care needs. The complaint relates back to events that took place in 2018. We will not consider complaints about matters that the complainant was aware over 12 months ago. It was reasonable for Mrs Y to complain to us sooner.

London Borough of Lewisham (21 009 299)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 18-Nov-2021

Summary: The complainant, Miss B, complained about the thoroughness of the Council’s safeguarding investigation when her late father was discharged from hospital to a care home in
December 2019. We found no fault in the way the Council substantiated the allegation of neglect against the care home during its safeguarding investigation. We did find fault in the way the Council decided Miss B’s father’s discharge from hospital was in line with the relevant law and guidance as the decision was not evidenced. The Council has agreed to our recommendations and will consider this specific point in line with its safeguarding procedures. It will write to Miss B to apologise and include her in the process. It will also remind its officers of the importance of ensuring safeguarding decisions are evidence based.

Derbyshire County Council (21 008 698)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 16-Nov-2021

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to provide suitable domiciliary care to Mrs Y, support Miss X as her carer, or carry out a safeguarding review. Some events complained about took place over 12 months ago and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate them now. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating the remaining part of the complaint.

Rutland County Council (20 008 656)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 15-Nov-2021

Summary: The Council’s service to the family during an adult safeguarding investigation failed with delays and communication errors. The Council failed to meet expectations when it arranged a meeting and then cancelled it and refused any further meeting. The Council will apologise and make a payment to acknowledge the upset, time, and trouble its actions caused.

Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (20 013 716)

Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 12-Nov-2021

Summary: Ms X complained about the outcome of the Council’s safeguarding enquiry about concerns she raised regarding carers from the care provider who delivered her home care. Ms X alleged a carer stole money from her and another failed to tell the Council’s safeguarding team when they witnessed her fall. There was no fault in how the Council carried out its safeguarding investigation. It did not substantiate the allegation of theft and there was no evidence a carer witnessed Ms X fall. Further investigation by us would unlikely lead to a different outcome.

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (20 014 202)

Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 12-Nov-2021

Summary: The Council has commissioned an independent social worker to review Ms A’s records and needs. This investigation will be discontinued therefore as I cannot say what difference the previous assessments made to the current situation until the results of the review are known.

London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (21 009 494)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 11-Nov-2021

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms X’s father’s care. This is because she has already started court proceedings about this matter.