Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • London Borough of Waltham Forest (18 016 226)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 05-Jul-2019

    Summary: The Council failed to communicate properly with Ms A about the safeguarding concern she raised and it apologises for that. It agrees to recognise the distress to Mr X and his family further by a payment in acknowledgement. It has also agreed to waive the additional fees it levied for her father's stay in residential care.

  • Darlington Borough Council (18 013 292)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 21-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain the Council mishandled a safeguarding concern involving them both. There is no fault in the actions of the Council. We have closed the case.

  • North Yorkshire County Council (17 015 975)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 21-Jun-2019

    Summary: The complaint concerns the Council making safeguarding enquiries after Mr B had an injury. We do not find the safeguarding enquiries resulted from any fault by the Council.

  • Essex County Council (18 018 443)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 17-Jun-2019

    Summary: The Council decided one to one observations were necessary to safeguard Mrs X from the risk of further self-harm. Mrs X complains the Council has refused to pay for the observations because she self-funds her care. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council and the Council has agreed to pay back Mrs X.

  • Kent County Council (18 017 171)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 12-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council investigated safeguarding concerns she raised regarding her adult daughter. She also complains about direct payments. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation to give the Council the opportunity to investigate and respond to the complaints.

  • Darlington Borough Council (18 013 683)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 31-May-2019

    Summary: Mrs Y complains the Council failed to take appropriate action in 2017 after she reported the alleged financial abuse of her father, Mr X. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault for not conducting a full assessment of Mr X's capacity after Mrs Y reported concerns. This caused distress to Mrs Y, which the Council has already proposed to remedy with a payment of £500. The Ombudsman finds this remedy is suitable and we do not recommend anything further.

  • West Sussex County Council (16 017 502)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 21-May-2019

    Summary: Mr B complained about the way the Council handled a Safeguarding Adult Review (SAR), following a serious injury sustained by his brother, Mr C, whilst in residential care. The SAR found significant fault in the Council's safeguarding investigation. We find fault in the way the SAR report was publicised and the way in which it involved Mr B in the process. This caused Mr B a significant amount of time and trouble and distress pursuing the issues raised. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and Mr C, pay Mr B £1000, tell us and Mr B what improvements it has made to its safeguarding investigation process and arrange a meeting with the agencies involved in the SAR as the SAB originally intended to do.

  • Norfolk County Council (18 015 769)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 17-May-2019

    Summary: There is evidence of fault in this complaint. The Council failed to properly investigate Mrs X's complaint about a carers actions on the night her husband died. The Council also failed to give sufficient weight to the evidence Mrs X provided. This caused her significant distress.

  • Cornwall Council (17 016 634)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 13-May-2019

    Summary: There was fault in the way the Council carried out safeguarding investigations and in its communications with Ms B and Mr C. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms B, to make a payment of £750 to Ms B and to make a service improvement to ensure the same fault does not happy again.

  • Shropshire Council (18 011 601)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 10-May-2019

    Summary: Most of Mr B's complaint is out of the Ombudsman's jurisdiction as it relates to the actions of the Council as a housing provider and is being investigated by the Housing Ombudsman. I have not found fault with the Council's actions in assessing Mr B's needs and recommending adaptations to the property.