Safeguarding


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • North Somerset Council (24 020 425)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 02-Jul-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council investigated Ms X’s safeguarding concerns about a relative. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

  • Herefordshire Council (25 003 338)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 30-Jun-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council would not respond to a complaint about a safeguarding referral. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

  • London Borough of Merton (25 002 075)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 30-Jun-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with her concerns about her relative from 2021. This is because most of the complaint is late and even if we exercised discretion to investigate, including the matters within time, it is unlikely we would find sufficient evidence of fault causing a personal injustice to Ms X.

  • Nottinghamshire County Council (24 012 833)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 26-Jun-2025

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly investigate her concerns about the Council commissioned care delivered to her mother in-law, Mrs Y. There was some fault with the care however, the Care Provider took appropriate action to prevent a recurrence of fault. There was no fault with how the Council responded to Mrs X’s concerns.

  • Brighton & Hove City Council (24 022 929)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 25-Jun-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of the complaints he raised about the Council’s actions in relation to safeguarding and housing concerns. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes. In addition, there are no worthwhile outcomes achievable as the substantive matters that led to the complaint have been resolved.

  • Surrey County Council (24 020 325)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 24-Jun-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of a bruise Mr Y sustained. There is insufficient evidence of fault, and we could not achieve the outcome Mrs X seeks.

  • Kent County Council (24 008 301)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 24-Jun-2025

    Summary: Ms C complains the Council took unfounded safeguarding action against her and reached a biased decision. Ms C also complains the Council failed to consider all her complaints. There is no fault in the Council’s decision to start safeguarding. However it is at fault for delay, and the failure to investigate some of Ms C’s complaints. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms C and make service improvements.

  • Herefordshire Council (25 003 427)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 23-Jun-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to a safeguarding referral. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

  • Cheshire East Council (24 023 121)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 22-Jun-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered safeguarding concerns raised by Mr B. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and an investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

  • Somerset Council (24 010 014)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 22-Jun-2025

    Summary: Lifeways Community Care Limited (the Care Provider), and the Council found that Mr K’s care and support was inadequate. The Council found that this put him at risk of abuse and neglect. Mr K was caused distress and had to move home. The Care Provider did not handle the complaint properly. The Council initially failed to handle the safeguarding concern appropriately. It did rectify this and has taken robust action to make sure that it does not commission further until the Care Provider makes improvements. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr K’s sister who acts on his behalf, and make a payment to Mr K and his sister in recognition of the distress it has caused them both.

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.

Privacy settings