Safeguarding

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • North Yorkshire County Council (18 011 387)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 20-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's safeguarding investigation following respite care her husband received. The Council was at fault when it recorded an inconclusive decision based on criteria which is not in line with the law, guidance or its own policy, and did not reflect the findings of its investigation. This caused distress for Mrs X. The Council is in the process of reviewing its policy and procedures to make them compliant with the Care Act. There were also delays in the Council's investigation, although these did not cause a personal injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a new decision, considering removal of the inconclusive decision. It has also agreed to issue a staff reminder and analyse safeguarding timescales to assess whether the same faults have impacted on others.

  • London Borough of Hounslow (18 003 167)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 19-Feb-2019

    Summary: Council faults in the way it investigated a safeguarding matter caused Mrs X significant personal injustice. The Ombudsman recommends a remedy for the injustice caused, and to improve the Council's processes.

  • Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (18 007 239)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 12-Feb-2019

    Summary: There is no evidence that the Council failed to act in accordance with its safeguarding procedure in the way it investigated the alert, or that it failed to respond to Mr A's complaint properly.

  • Devon County Council (17 018 768)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 23-Jan-2019

    Summary: I consider Devon Partnership NHS Trust (the Trust) took the decision to discharge Miss A from the community mental health team without fault. I consider Devon County Council's (the Council) section 42 enquiry was flawed. It did not provide the Trust with timescales, and closed the enquiry before resolving any of the concerns.

  • West Sussex County Council (18 008 685)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 22-Jan-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her mother, Mrs Y. Mrs X complained the Council failed to safeguard Mrs Y, after it left her alone at home for 15 hours, after it made the decision to admit her to hospital under the Mental Health Act. The Council was at fault. It failed to complete a risk assessment or document its decision to leave Mrs Y alone. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X, and pay her £150 for time and trouble in pursuing her complaint, and for the uncertainty its actions caused her. It agreed to review its policy and procedures to ensure all Approved Mental Health Professionals are aware of the importance of risk assessments and documenting decisions.

  • Leeds City Council (18 001 195)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 21-Jan-2019

    Summary: Mr B makes several complaints about the Council's assessment of his wife's social care needs, about the care provided to her when she attended a day centre until early 2017, and about the Council's investigation into his complaint. Several of Mr B's complaints were upheld by the Council as part of its investigation. The Ombudsman has found no fault in Mr B's other complaints.

  • North Yorkshire County Council (18 003 490)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 09-Jan-2019

    Summary: Mrs Y complains about the Council's actions following receipt of a safeguarding concern made about her. Mrs Y also complains about the Council's decision to appoint an independent advocate for her son, Mr X. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the Council's actions and does not uphold the complaint.

  • London Borough of Haringey (18 004 554)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 18-Dec-2018

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to properly investigate her safeguarding concerns in relation to her father. Based on the information currently available, there was fault in the way the Council responded to Ms X and her family's safeguard concerns. This fault has caused Ms X an injustice in the form of distress and anxiety, and has put her to unnecessary time and trouble.

  • Peterborough City Council (17 015 817)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 07-Dec-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsmen find fault in the way a Council conducted a safeguarding enquiry. As a result restrictions were put in place before proper consideration had been given to the person's best interests. This, in turn, caused avoidable distress to her husband. The Council has agreed to action to learn from the case.

  • Birmingham City Council (18 002 389)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 06-Dec-2018

    Summary: There is no evidence the Council was at fault in the way it placed another service user with Ms X in her supported living, or reduced Ms X's care package as a result, or failed to consider the safeguarding alerts and Ms X's family's complaints properly. The care provider (acting on behalf of the Council) failed to follow its procedures on two occasions when Ms X was found with an injury. The Council agrees to apologise to Ms X, and make a payment in recognition that distress was caused to her family.

;