Safeguarding


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Staffordshire County Council (19 010 290)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 26-Mar-2020

    Summary: There is no fault by the Council in the way it undertook a safeguarding investigation into concerns about how Mr X and his brother managed his late mother's finances. It acted properly and in accordance with the law

  • Kent County Council (19 014 198)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 26-Mar-2020

    Summary: There is no fault by the Council in how it investigated Mrs X's complaint about the care provided to her late mother in a residential home. It carried a full and fair safeguarding investigation which reached evidence-based conclusions.

  • Kent County Council (19 004 637)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 20-Mar-2020

    Summary: There is no evidence the Council failed to take proper action in response to Ms A's safeguarding alerts, or act in Mr X's best interests when he became homeless. There was a delay in applying for deputyship but that was not wholly in the Council's control.

  • Nottingham City Council (19 007 292)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 19-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Council correctly assessed Mrs C's adult social care needs to facilitate her discharge from hospital, considering her wishes and those of family and professionals involved. The Council followed law and government guidance. The Council failed to respond to the complaint in line with its published procedures; it will apologise, and its complaint team will ensure to follow its procedure and update complainants as required.

  • Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (19 005 753)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 18-Mar-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to deal properly with safeguarding concerns raised in May 2018, involving her now late grandmother, and failed to tell her the outcome. The Council accepts responsibility for a lack of communication with Mrs X about the safeguarding concerns. It has now improved the procedures for dealing with safeguarding concerns, to ensure this does not happen again. It needs to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £350 for the distress caused and trouble she has been put to.

  • Birmingham City Council (19 009 719)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 09-Mar-2020

    Summary: Mrs F complains on behalf of her sister about the way the Council dealt with an adult safeguarding enquiry. The Ombudsman has not found fault.

  • Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (19 003 492)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 04-Mar-2020

    Summary: Ms X complained that Walsall Metropolitan Council, Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust and Pleck Health Centre failed to meet safeguarding duties in respect of her late mother, Mrs Y. The agencies responded appropriately to safeguarding alerts and made best interest decisions about Mrs Y's care that considered relevant evidence, including the difference of views amongst family members. The Council was at fault for not feeding back the outcome of its safeguarding investigation to the Pleck Health Centre. This did not cause injustice.

  • Oxfordshire County Council (19 007 554)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 02-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsmen found fault with the care provided to an elderly man by a care home acting on behalf of the Council. The Council agreed to apologise for this fault and pay a financial sum in recognition of the distress this caused. The Ombudsmen were satisfied a GP Practice and Trust that were also involved in the man's care acted without fault.

  • Essex County Council (19 008 956)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 27-Feb-2020

    Summary: Mrs X's brother, Mr Y, lived in a residential home. The care provider had financial policies which the Council said were not acceptable. Mrs X complains the Council should have been aware of the internal policy of the care provider. She also complains the Council has not taken any action to review the financial policies of its other commissioned care providers. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council's actions.

  • Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (18 019 501)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 25-Feb-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide adequate community care support to Mr Y as a vulnerable person causing distress and the loss of his council tenancy. We found fault as the Council failed to provide an annual support plan, remain in contact with Mr Y when he moved out of the area, transfer his case to the new council, and delayed carry out a financial assessment. But this fault did not cause Mr Y an injustice, so we have completed our investigation.