Safeguarding


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • London Borough of Islington (19 015 143)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 15-Feb-2021

    Summary: The complainant, Mr B, said the Council and the NHS Trust failed to safeguard his vulnerable adult brother from financial abuse between 2010 and 2015 when he lived in a supported housing placement. We found the Council had sufficient safeguards in place in line with its safeguarding responsibilities. The Trust had a policy in place to safeguard patients' property and valuables but its investigation highlighted weaknesses around managing patient's finances and cash handling. The Trust's investigation is enough to remedy doubt the complainant may have about its handling of his brother's finances. The Trust agreed to our recommendations and will tell us what it has done to improve since it became aware of the weaknesses in its processes. It will also write to the complainant.

  • London Borough of Tower Hamlets (20 002 305)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 05-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mrs B complained about how the Council dealt with allegations of financial abuse by a carer employed by an agency providing homecare on its behalf, and about how the Council dealt with the complaint about that. We have found there was fault by the Council in these matters and that as a result Mrs B was caused unnecessary distress and time and trouble seeking to have matters resolved. The Council has agreed to take appropriate action to remedy this injustice.

  • Middlesbrough Borough Council (19 012 844)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 04-Feb-2021

    Summary: A CAB adviser complained on behalf of Ms X that the Council failed to properly manage her finances after becoming an appointee. She says this mismanagement resulted in employment support allowance and housing benefit overpayments of more than £12,000. The Council failed to notify the Department for Work and Pensions of changes to Ms X's circumstances and failed to spend the benefit in Ms X's best interests which were its duties as appointee. The overpayments of benefits would not have occurred if the Council had acted correctly as appointee.

  • East Sussex County Council (19 019 234)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 02-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's management and investigation of safeguarding concerns she raised regarding her mother. We find no fault with the Council's actions.

  • West Sussex County Council (19 018 716)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 01-Feb-2021

    Summary: The Council was not at fault for deciding not to assess
    Mrs C's needs in December 2019, for its consideration of its safeguarding powers, or for its consideration of her mental capacity. It decided the safeguarding threshold was not met, and it did not have doubts about Mrs C's capacity, so it did not have good reason to ignore her lack of consent for the needs assessment. The Council was at fault for a delay in responding to Mrs C's niece's complaint, but it has already apologised, so no further action is necessary.

  • Kent County Council (19 007 211)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 28-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mrs A says the Council failed to act when she raised safeguarding concerns about her brother and failed to offer a suitable remedy for the failings. The Council dealt with the concerns Mrs A raised about provision of care to her brother properly but failed to progress a deprivation of liberty safeguards application. The Council also delayed inviting Mrs A's parents to a safeguarding meeting after her brother's death. Failure to progress the deprivation of liberty safeguards application has created some uncertainty about whether action would have been taken, has caused Mrs A and her parents frustration and led to Mrs A had to go to time and trouble to pursue her complaint. An apology, payment to Mrs A and her parents, along with the action the Council has already taken to improve communication between its safeguarding and deprivation of liberty safeguards teams is satisfactory remedy.

  • Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (19 019 814)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 27-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to safeguard her late mother at Springfield Park Nursing Home and failed to deal properly with her safeguarding concerns. There was a failure to follow the seizure management plan and a delay in calling an ambulance. Although we cannot say this caused harm to Mrs X's mother, the Council needs to apologise to Mrs X for the distress caused and the time and trouble it has put her to.

  • South Gloucestershire Council (19 021 187)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 26-Jan-2021

    Summary: There is no fault by the Council in the way it undertook a safeguarding investigation into concerns about how Mr & Mrs X managed their adult daughter's finances. It acted properly and in accordance with the law

  • East Sussex County Council (20 000 512)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 18-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mr X and Ms Y complained the Council delayed transferring their late mother, Mrs Z, from a temporary care home to her preferred care home, pending the outcome of a Continuing Healthcare (CHC) assessment. The Council was at fault. It did await the CHC outcome, but this did not cause Mrs Z an injustice as Mrs Z was unwell and so the delay did not affect the timing of the move. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and Ms Y for the lack of clarity in its communications and remind staff that CHC assessments should not delay planned care home moves.

  • Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (19 012 289)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 18-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mrs C complained about the way in which the Council carried out a safeguarding investigation against her. We found that, while the Council was not at fault for the time it took to complete the investigation, it failed to sufficiently consider whether it would be possible to interview Mrs C before it made its decision. This resulted in distress to her. The Council has agreed to apologise for this and review whether it will be able to interview Mrs C.

Privacy settings

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.