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:

  • Gloucestershire County Council (21 005 067)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 11-Apr-2022

    Summary: We found no fault by the Council with regards to the action it took to safeguard Mrs D, an elderly woman with complex care needs. We also found no fault by the Council and Trust concerning the planning for Mrs D's discharge from hospital. However, we found fault with the Council's communication with Mrs D's family. The Council agreed to pay a financial remedy in recognition of the distress this caused.

  • London Borough of Wandsworth (21 001 259)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 11-Apr-2022

    Summary: We found fault with the record keeping by the district nurses and the way they ordered dressings. We also found there was a lack of a multidisciplinary team approach to Mr B's care. We found the Council did not action its safeguarding enquiry immediately and it was not open and honest with Miss A during the complaints process. These faults caused avoidable distress and frustration to Miss A. We recommended an apology, service improvements and financial recompense to address this injustice.

  • Birmingham City Council (21 006 887)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 06-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with a safeguarding report about his mother. We found there was fault in the Council's actions that warranted a remedy. We also found fault in the way the Council responded to the complaint.

  • East Sussex County Council (20 012 515)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 03-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mr C complained about the way the Council responded to the safeguarding concerns he raised about his son's care, at the end of 2018. We found some fault with the way the safeguarding enquiry was handled and the way in which the Council responded to Mr C's concerns about that. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr C and pay him a financial remedy for the distress he experienced. It will also share the lessons learned with relevant staff.

  • North Somerset Council (20 002 739)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 03-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mr B complained about the care and support provided to his late uncle, Mr D, by a Home which was partly funded by the Council via an agreement and the NHS. He said the Home and the Council failed to safeguard his uncle from abuse and ensure he received good care between January to December 2019. He also complained about the effectiveness of the Council's safeguarding investigation. Mr B claimed Mr D suffered unnecessarily and the events led to Mr B experiencing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. We found failings in the care provided to Mr D and he was not always safeguarded from abuse while in the Home. This caused substantial injustice to him and led to Mr B experiencing significant distress. We did not find fault in the way the Council followed its safeguarding procedures or the way it worked with the Home, to ensure it improved. The Council and the Home have agreed to our recommendations and will apologise to Mr B and pay him £600 to acknowledge the distress he experienced. The Council will waive £6179 from the amount Mr D's estate owes for care fees. It will also remind its officers of the importance of acknowledging relatives who hold attorney status when dealing with mental capacity issues.

  • London Borough of Bexley (21 007 746)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 30-Mar-2022

    Summary: Miss X complained on behalf of her mother, Mrs Y, that the Council wrongly initiated a safeguarding enquiry because of non-payment of care home charges. Miss X says she tried to resolve the issue, but the Council did not properly communicate with her. Miss X says the Council's actions caused avoidable stress and anxiety. We find no fault by the Council regarding this matter and have concluded our investigation.

  • East Sussex County Council (21 011 045)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 25-Mar-2022

    Summary: Dr B complained ESC Council and the NHS Trust failed to properly safeguard her when it undertook an investigation into allegations of physical assault when she lived in a care home jointly funded by the CCG and BHC Council. She also complained about the home's investigation and its decision to serve notice to end the placement. We found fault in the safeguarding protection plan put in place by ESC Council and as a result Dr B experienced avoidable distress. We also found fault in the way the jointly funded home completed its investigation, and this is likely to have meant Dr B missed an opportunity to have her views and outcomes properly recorded. The Councils and the CCG agreed to our recommendations and will arrange for Dr B to receive a written apology for the injustice caused. ESC Council will also remind its officers of the importance of updating safeguarding documentation.

  • Cornwall Council (20 011 656)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 25-Mar-2022

    Summary: There was delay in the support the Council had agreed to provide to Mr C, particularly in managing his finances. There was poor communication with Mrs B and the Council should have held a multi-disciplinary risk meeting earlier. Mrs B suffered an injustice as a result as she was often left to provide support for Mr C. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and pay her £300.

  • Devon County Council (21 011 227)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 23-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's handling of allegations about his care for his partner and its decision that his partner should receive care in a nursing home. I have ended my investigation because most of the issues Mr X complained about occurred too long ago. There was also insufficient evidence of fault, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

  • Hertfordshire County Council (20 001 982)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 22-Mar-2022

    Summary: The commissioned care provider inappropriately implemented its emergency hospital admission procedure when Mrs X was agitated after a fall. It failed to offer her prescribed pain relief. It was poor practice on the part of the care provider to tell Mrs X's family she would be "sectioned" and caused considerable distress. The Council on behalf of the care provider will now apologise to Mrs X's family, offer a sum to recognise their distress, and provide details of the remedial actions taken by the care provider.