Worcestershire County Council (24 009 027)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 31-Mar-2025

Summary: Mr X and Ms Y complained how the Council handled the safeguarding concerns about their grandmother. We find the Council was at fault for its delay in realising it was not the authority responsible for handling Mr X’s and Ms Y’s concerns. This caused them frustration and upset. The Council has apologised and put in place service improvements to prevent a recurrence of the fault. This is an appropriate remedy to reflect the injustice caused by fault. We do not recommend anything further.

Durham County Council (24 007 103)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 30-Mar-2025

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to arrange suitable support for him when he left hospital in April 2024, leaving him without the support he needed. The Council delayed in identifying the need to reassess Mr X’s needs, review his financial assessment with him, and review his risk management plan. These delays caused avoidable distress to Mr X, but he was left without the support he needed because he was not prepared to pay for it. The Council needs to apologise for the distress it caused and take action to improve its services.

Herefordshire Council (24 012 326)

Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 28-Mar-2025

Summary: There is no fault in the way the Council conducted a safeguarding investigation into concerns raised about the safety and wellbeing of Mr Y in a residential care home.

Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (24 002 287)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 26-Mar-2025

Summary: Mrs C complains a care home acting on behalf of the Council failed to safeguard her mother, Mrs D, which resulted in a fall and extensive injuries. The Council is at fault for failing to provide the care home with a copy of Mrs D’s assessment and the care home failed to properly risk assess Mrs D. This has caused uncertainty about whether Mrs D would have fallen as she did. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs D and Mrs C, make a symbolic payment for the uncertainty caused, and service improvements.

Nottingham City Council (24 002 449)

Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 26-Mar-2025

Summary: Mrs X and Mrs Y complain that the Council failed to undertake an appropriate safeguarding investigation after their sister Ms A developed a serious pressure sore in the care home where she lived. The evidence available shows that the Council considered properly how the care provider acted in accordance with the relevant guidance.

London Borough of Croydon (24 010 656)

Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 25-Mar-2025

Summary: Mrs X complains about the safeguarding investigation relating to her daughter, Miss Y. She says Miss Y was not properly involved in the process, and the Section 42 enquiries did not lead to any accountability about what happened to Miss Y. Mrs X says the matter has caused significant distress to both her and Miss Y. We have found no fault in the actions of the Council.

London Borough of Islington (24 009 597)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 21-Mar-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a coroner’s prevention of future deaths report. Although the complainant disagrees with the Council’s response, there is no fault in process. It is for the coroner to decide if any further action is necessary following the Council’s response. There is no worthwhile outcome to achieve from an Ombudsman investigation.

London Borough of Lambeth (24 017 150)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 20-Mar-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council’s safeguarding investigation in 2021 and 2022. There is not a good reason for the delay in the complaint being made to the Ombudsman. In any event, we could not achieve the outcomes Mr X seeks.

Gloucestershire County Council (24 007 998)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 12-Mar-2025

Summary: Mr W, on behalf of the family, complained the Council failed to assess Mr X’s capacity or consult his parents before deciding to extend his respite stay. Mr W also complained about delays and lack of action in response to safeguarding concerns. We find the Council at fault for delay informing the family of the safeguarding outcome, which caused uncertainty. The Council has agreed to issue an apology.

Oxfordshire County Council (24 007 673)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 11-Mar-2025

Summary: Miss X complained about the care the Council arranged for her brother, Mr Y and how the Council investigated safeguarding concerns about the Care Home. There was no fault in how the Care Home cared for Mr Y. There was some fault in how the Council carried out its safeguarding enquiries, but this did not affect the outcome. The Council has already taken steps to improve how it investigates safeguarding concerns.