Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • London Borough of Hackney (19 000 040)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 03-Sep-2019

    Summary: Ms X says the Council's response to safeguarding concerns she raised about her daughter was inadequate. There was fault by the Council because it did not properly respond to Ms X's reports. The Council agreed to review the actions of its social workers and provide a financial remedy to Ms X to reflect the uncertainty about the outcome.

  • North Yorkshire County Council (18 015 702)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 29-Aug-2019

    Summary: The Council failed to properly consider whether it should carry out a safeguarding investigation into the actions of an elderly couple's carers. The Ombudsman recommends that the Council apologises and pays the family £650.

  • Lancashire County Council (18 017 385)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 19-Aug-2019

    Summary: There were procedural faults by a care home during the complainant's stay, in a placement commissioned by the Council. The Council undertook a safeguarding investigation which highlighted this, and worked with the care home to make several improvements. However, these faults did not cause an injustice to the complainant.

  • London Borough of Tower Hamlets (18 019 424)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 15-Aug-2019

    Summary: We uphold Mrs A's complaint about poor wound care for her late father Mr B. The Council will apologise and pay Mrs A £1000 to recognise her avoidable distress.

  • Bristol City Council (18 017 616)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 12-Aug-2019

    Summary: Mrs B says the Council failed to take action when a care worker shared her sister's bed. There is no evidence of fault in the safeguarding investigation or in the conclusions reached following that safeguarding investigation.

  • London Borough of Bromley (17 019 605)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 12-Aug-2019

    Summary: Ms C complains about the process through which the Council carried out a safeguarding investigation into the concerns she had raised about her grandmother's care. She did not complain about the outcome. The Ombudsman found fault with the way in which the Council carried out the investigation, which resulted in some delays and in distress to Ms C. The Council has already apologised for this and has agreed to share the lessons learned with relevant staff.

  • Brighton & Hove City Council (18 003 886)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 09-Aug-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsmen found fault by the Council in relation to the care provided to a woman when she was resident in a nursing home. The Council agreed to apologise to the complainant and pay him a financial sum in recognition of the distress and uncertainty this caused. The Ombudsmen found no fault with the care provided by the Practice or Trust during the woman's time in the nursing home and her subsequent hospital admission.

  • Plymouth City Council (18 017 093)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 05-Aug-2019

    Summary: Mr X and Mrs X complain about the Council's handling of safeguarding issues regarding their father. They complain the Council told them their father was subject to a protection order, that the Council's assessment of their father's care and support needs were dismissive, and that the Council's communication with them was poor. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council's actions. The Council has agreed to apologise and make service improvements.

  • North Somerset Council (17 018 786)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 02-Aug-2019

    Summary: The complaint is about how the Council investigated safeguarding concerns in a nursing home where Mr C lived. There was some fault by the Council, causing some missed opportunity and avoidable frustration. The Council has agreed my recommendations to apologise, pay £200, remind the nursing home of incidents it needs to report and change the Council's procedures and staff training as necessary. I did not uphold other parts of the complaint.

  • Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (18 008 491)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 19-Jul-2019

    Summary: There was no fault in the decision not to conduct a Safeguarding Adults Review because Mr B's case did not meet the criteria for one. There was fault in dealing with Ms A's correspondence as a complaint because she had not made one, a delay in signing off a safeguarding enquiry report and confusion caused by the Safeguarding Adults Board reversing its initial decision. When Ms A later complained, the Council took longer to respond than it should have done. The fault caused Ms A and Mr B avoidable distress. The Council will apologise within one month and take action to complete the independent learning review within two months.