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.


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Cumbria County Council (19 018 595)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 08-Jun-2021

    Summary: Mrs D complained that Council failed to safeguard her mother, Mrs C, from financial abuse. The Council has accepted that it did not progress its safeguarding investigation quickly enough. Mrs D has suffered an injustice as she cannot be satisfied her concerns were taken seriously. The Council will take action to remedy this injustice.

  • Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (20 005 598)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 08-Jun-2021

    Summary: We found fault on the part of a domiciliary care provider regarding its decision to suspend the care package of a vulnerable woman with complex needs due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We also found fault by the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) for the advice it provided to the care provider and family. The care provider and CCG will apologise to the family and pay them a financial sum in recognition of the impact of this fault on them. We also found fault with the Council's handling of the initial safeguarding enquiries but are satisfied it has acted to put matters right.

  • South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (20 001 416)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 04-Jun-2021

    Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's decision to put her mother into respite care and the care quality she received once she moved. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has agreed to take proportionate action to remedy the injustice to Mrs X and her father.

  • London Borough of Haringey (20 007 274)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 01-Jun-2021

    Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it responded to safeguarding concerns Ms X raised about Mrs Y. I have seen no evidence which supports Ms X's claims that the Council behaved inappropriately towards her during its investigations.

  • Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (20 004 873)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 27-May-2021

    Summary: Ms B complained on her own behalf and on behalf of her late father about the standard of her father's care while he lived in extra care housing, issues that arose about her father's funeral plan and burial plot and the Council's failure to deal with her complaints about these matters. She said her father was not cared for properly and his wishes for burial could not be met. She said she was caused stress and upset. There was fault by the Council that caused injustice to Ms B. The Council will apologise and make a payment to her.

  • Kent County Council (19 021 062)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 27-May-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her father, Mr Y, about the Council's safeguarding enquiry into Mr Y's care at Madeira Lodge Care Home. The Ombudsman found no evidence of fault with the Council's enquiry, or the outcome reached.

  • Leeds City Council (20 005 938)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 25-May-2021

    Summary: Mr Z has made a complaint about the Council for failing to act in response to safeguarding alerts and referrals that he is at risk of abuse. Mr Z says the alleged fault has caused him distress and made him susceptible to harm. However, the Ombudsman has found the Council made appropriate enquires to assess whether Mr Z was at risk and there is no fault in how it made its decisions. The Ombudsman cannot question the merits of the Council's decisions in the absence of fault.

  • Hertfordshire County Council (20 000 918)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 18-May-2021

    Summary: The Council has accepted it took too long to investigate safeguarding concerns about Mr B's late mother, and failed to communicate with Mr B sufficiently. The Council has also acknowledged it took too long to complete essential adaptations to the family home. This meant that Mrs Y was left without proper access to washing facilities and could not use the stairs. It caused Mr B distress, uncertainty and frustration. The Council has raised concerns at a senior level and completed a transformation programme of its adaptations service. It will also review its safeguarding practices. The Council should also apologise to Mr B for its shortcomings and pay him £500 in respect of the prolonged distress, uncertainty, inconvenience, and frustration its delays caused him.

  • Telford & Wrekin Council (19 021 140)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 17-May-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Care Provider commissioned by the Council, St Georges Park Care Home, unnecessarily prevented her from visiting her mother Mrs Y. Mrs X also complained the Care Provider did not properly care for Mrs Y and falsely accused her of abusing her mother. Mrs X says the Care Provider's actions caused her distress. There was fault when the Council failed to respond to Mrs X's complaint within the required timescales. This caused Mrs X inconvenience. The Council has made an offer of £250 to address its handling of Mrs X's complaint and has agreed to my recommendation to address the service failure. This is a satisfactory remedy to address the injustice Mrs X suffered. There was no fault in the Care Provider's actions.

  • London Borough of Hackney (20 003 332)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 13-May-2021

    Summary: We stopped investigating a complaint about a council's response to allegations of abuse because relevant evidence is not available.