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.

Safeguarding


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (20 007 862)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 01-Sep-2021

    Summary: We find fault in the Council's investigation of the safeguarding concerns raised by Mrs Y. This is because the Council cannot demonstrate what evidence it considered when reaching its decision. The Council will apologise to Mrs Y and provide evidence to the Ombudsman of the remedial action undertaken by the care provider since the conclusion of the safeguarding investigation.

  • London Borough of Wandsworth (20 009 550)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 31-Aug-2021

    Summary: Ms Y complained the Council allowed a friend, Ms X, to be discharged home from hospital despite her lacking capacity to make a decision about her care placement. Ms Y also complains the way the Council dealt with her and her sister over Ms X's care home fees led unnecessarily to a safeguarding investigation. There was no fault in the Council's actions in relation to Ms X's discharge from hospital. The Council has already admitted it was at fault in the way it communicated over Ms X's care home fees which caused distress. It has already apologised and agreed to make service changes to prevent a reoccurrence. The Council has also agreed to make Ms Y and Ms Z a financial payment to remedy the outstanding injustice it caused them.

  • London Borough of Ealing (20 010 805)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 27-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mrs E complained about the way the Council dealt with safeguarding concerns she raised about her late husband. She also complained the Council delayed dealing with her complaint about the matter. We find the Council was at fault for its communication with Mrs E and the way it dealt with her complaint. The Council apologised to Mrs E which is suitable to remedy the injustice caused by fault.

  • Cheshire East Council (20 009 672)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 19-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mrs Y complained on Mr X's behalf, about the way the Council dealt with a safeguarding incident affecting him, and said it failed to take appropriate action to protect him from further incidents. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council in failing to take proper care to protect Mr X, causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising and making payments to Mr X and Mrs Y to reflect the distress, time and trouble caused by this fault.

  • St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (20 003 753)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 17-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mr C complains about the Council's response to his requests for help with Mrs B's housing and care needs and his safeguarding concerns. Mr C says Mrs B did not receive homelessness advice and help or appropriate care and he did not receive support as Mrs B's carer. We have found fault by the Council in its failure to properly evidence it offered a carer's assessment. We consider the agreed actions of an apology, payment and offer of a carer's assessment provide a suitable remedy.

  • Sheffield City Council (20 000 997)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 16-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mr G says a care company providing care on behalf of the Council, Direct Health Ltd, neglected his grandmother, Mrs C, for 14 months. He says the Council failed to notice the neglect, failed to investigate his safeguarding concerns then tried to cover up its own and the care company's failures. He says this caused Mrs C and him injustice in that Mrs C suffered health problems because of the poor care and their relationship was affected. He also complains about an inadequate complaint response. The Council was at fault for the poor care provided by the care company, for failing to investigate a safeguarding concern and for a failure to deal promptly with Mr G's complaint. However, the Council has already refunded some fees and apologised so no further remedy is required.

  • Hampshire County Council (20 010 683)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 13-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mrs Y complained about the way the Council dealt with her late father, and its decision to accept his refusal to share information about his care with the family. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation into the complaint. This is because most of Mrs Y's complaint is late, the injustice during the limited period we could investigate is not significant enough to justify our continued involvement and we cannot achieve a different outcome for Mr X.

  • West Berkshire Council (20 006 862)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 10-Aug-2021

    Summary: West Berkshire County Council carried out a safeguarding investigation into Mrs Y's weight loss in line with the local procedures. However, a GP at Tilehurst Village Surgery did not monitor Mrs Y's weight despite agreeing to. That fault caused Mrs Y's daughter, Mrs X, uncertainty. The GP recognised that fault and has appropriately remedied the injustice to Mrs X and potentially others.

  • West Berkshire Council (20 007 772)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 06-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complained that since 2018 the Council failed to properly consider and respond to safeguarding concerns related to her father. She also complained that since 2020 the Council commissioned care provider failed to report safeguarding issues to the Council, and it altered its carers reports. We found no fault in how the Council considered safeguarding reports related to Mrs X's father, or how the care agency reported matters to the Council.

  • Hampshire County Council (21 004 442)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 05-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mr and Mrs C complained the Council refused to remove allegations of abuse made by their daughter from its records when she withdrew them. They also complained the Council wrongly shared allegations of abuse with the NHS as fact and did not update the NHS when their daughter withdrew the allegations. We have discontinued the investigation because there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, the Information Commissioner.