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.


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Bristol City Council (21 000 088)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 10-May-2022

    Summary: Ms C, who was a Shared Lives Carer, complained about the way in which the Council responded to allegations made against her. I found the Council failed to effectively communicate with Ms C and there was a delay in completing the safeguarding enquiry. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy for the distress this caused Ms C.

  • Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (21 014 265)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 04-May-2022

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to involve her in a safeguarding enquiry where she was the alleged perpetrator. I ended this investigation because the Council has not had the opportunity to investigate and respond to Mrs X's complaint and it is best placed to do so.

  • Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (21 004 293)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 25-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's handling of various matters surrounding the care needs of, and care home placement for, his mother. The complaint was closed because we did not find fault by the Council in the matters raised by Mr X.

  • Birmingham City Council (21 009 812)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 21-Apr-2022

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint at this time, about the Council's safeguarding response for Mr X's mother. The Council has agreed to our recommendation to make clear to Mr X whether it will help arrange contact between him and his mother. It is open to Mr X to then bring his complaint back to us after matters have concluded.

  • London Borough of Sutton (21 009 157)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 19-Apr-2022

    Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to arrange a follow up safeguarding meeting as agreed, in relation to concerns a care home failed to call an ambulance in response to her mother's seizures. The Council's failure to communicate clearly with Ms X amounts to fault. This fault has caused Ms X distress and uncertainty and put her to unnecessary time and trouble.

  • East Riding of Yorkshire Council (21 005 234)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 19-Apr-2022

    Summary: We investigated a complaint about the care the Nursing Home provided to Mrs Y and the Council's safeguarding investigation. We found fault with the record keeping and complaint handling by the Nursing Home and that the Council's safeguarding investigation was not completed on time. These faults caused avoidable frustration to Mr X. We recommended an apology and service improvements to address this injustice.

  • London Borough of Tower Hamlets (21 010 079)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 18-Apr-2022

    Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to notify her it had started a safeguarding in respect of her father and failed to complete the investigation and explain the reasons for this decision. The Council closed the safeguarding investigation prematurely in error, which is fault. It has now completed a retrospective safeguarding investigation reaching a decision that is unlikely to have been different even if it had been completed sooner.

  • London Borough of Wandsworth (21 001 259)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 11-Apr-2022

    Summary: We found fault with the record keeping by the district nurses and the way they ordered dressings. We also found there was a lack of a multidisciplinary team approach to Mr B's care. We found the Council did not action its safeguarding enquiry immediately and it was not open and honest with Miss A during the complaints process. These faults caused avoidable distress and frustration to Miss A. We recommended an apology, service improvements and financial recompense to address this injustice.

  • Birmingham City Council (21 006 887)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 06-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with a safeguarding report about his mother. We found there was fault in the Council's actions that warranted a remedy. We also found fault in the way the Council responded to the complaint.

  • East Sussex County Council (20 012 515)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 03-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mr C complained about the way the Council responded to the safeguarding concerns he raised about his son's care, at the end of 2018. We found some fault with the way the safeguarding enquiry was handled and the way in which the Council responded to Mr C's concerns about that. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr C and pay him a financial remedy for the distress he experienced. It will also share the lessons learned with relevant staff.