Norfolk County Council (24 008 908)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 04-Aug-2025

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to protect his late sister in-law, Ms Y, from financial abuse. There was no fault in the way the Council investigated Mr X’s concerns under its safeguarding procedures. However, the Council was at fault for not applying for deputyship to manage Ms Y’s finances when her capital reached the limit set out in the Council’s policy. This caused Mr X and his wife distress and uncertainty. The Council has already apologised to Mr X. It did not cause an injustice to Ms Y as there was no evidence the Council mismanaged her finances. In addition, the Council has amended its policy to prevent a recurrence of fault.

Sheffield City Council (25 001 195)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 03-Aug-2025

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

Peterborough City Council (25 001 326)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 03-Aug-2025

Summary: We will not investigate the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s complaint about Mrs X’s mother being controlled by another relative. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and also because we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.

Birmingham City Council (24 022 415)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 30-Jul-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s safeguarding investigation and the actions of a day centre. There is insufficient evidence of fault that would justify us investigating the complaint further.

North Northamptonshire Council (24 017 239)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 29-Jul-2025

Summary: On behalf of Mr B, Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of a safeguarding incident and subsequent investigations. We find the Council at fault for a delay in completing the safeguarding enquiry and poor communication during the process. This caused Mr X frustration, uncertainty and distress. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic financial payment and complete service improvements to remedy the injustice caused.

London Borough of Redbridge (25 007 484)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 29-Jul-2025

Summary: The Council failed to properly assess the capacity of three family members to make a homelessness application when they told the Council they were suffering domestic abuse. The Council did not deal with the safeguarding referral appropriately or in good time, and did not offer the family social care needs assessments soon enough. It cannot show how it made the decision to offer a one-bedroom property and it took too long to deal with the complaint to it. The family missed out on interim accommodation, and they were caused distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, make symbolic payments to the family, and review their housing needs. It will also review its training and procedures on mental capacity assessment, arranging interpreters, and monitoring case progress.

Essex County Council (24 013 349)

Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 28-Jul-2025

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his mother Miss Y about how the Council charged for a temporary care home, made her sign a document, managed her money, and decided to apply to the Court of Protection for deputyship. He said this caused Miss Y distress. We do not find the Council at fault.

Lancashire County Council (24 018 243)

Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 27-Jul-2025

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about the Council’s handling of safeguarding incidents in a care home. This is because we have already considered and upheld this matter in a previous investigation. We also consider the Council’s own investigation is satisfactory, and so there could be no worthwhile outcome to further investigation anyway.

London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (24 019 772)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 24-Jul-2025

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to safeguard him, did not assess his social care needs properly, and did not implement the reasonable adjustments he needed under the Equality Act. There was no fault in how the Council considered its safeguarding duties and how it assessed Mr X’s care needs. There was fault when the Council failed to implement Mr X’s reasonable adjustments and this caused Mr X distress and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X.

Lancashire County Council (24 011 204)

Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 24-Jul-2025

Summary: Miss X complained on behalf of her father (Mr Y) about the Council’s handling of safeguarding concerns that he was vulnerable and at risk of harm and neglect due to alleged poor care he received while in residential care. Based on current information, there is no evidence the Council failed to consider all concerns raised in this respect. In any event, there is no evidence Mr Y suffered an injustice as a direct result of the Council’s safeguarding actions, or any other matter it is responsible for. We also found we do not have jurisdiction to investigate some of the matters which form Miss X’s complaint.