Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Wolverhampton City Council (20 007 401)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 16-Mar-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to carry out a safeguarding investigation into his concerns about the care home where his late mother had lived. He felt there were errors in how the care home cared for her hearing. We have discontinued the investigation as we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by investigating the complaint now.

  • Oxfordshire County Council (19 018 745)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 10-Mar-2021

    Summary: There is no evidence the Council failed to consider the safeguarding alert properly. Mr X had capacity to make his own decisions about his visitors and who managed his finances.

  • Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (19 004 532)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 10-Mar-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained about poor care provided to his mother, Mrs Y, as part of a Council-commissioned care package. He also says a later safeguarding investigation was inadequate and the Council managed his complaint poorly. There was poor care which caused Mrs Y some distress. The Council will pay Mrs Y £250 to acknowledge the distress caused. The care provider, Sevacare, and the Council have acted to improve care services in future. The Council considered possible safeguarding issues appropriately but there was delay in its investigation of the concerns about poor care. The Council will pay Mr X and Mrs Y £100 each to remedy the frustration and uncertainty caused by the delay. Sevacare has apologised for its delay responding to Mr X's complaint and that is an appropriate remedy.

  • Norfolk County Council (19 016 522)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 03-Mar-2021

    Summary: The Council acted appropriately when Mrs X raised safeguarding concerns about her mother, Mrs Y. It followed correct procedures in line with the relevant law. We have completed our investigation and have not upheld Mrs X's complaint.

  • London Borough of Ealing (20 003 066)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 02-Mar-2021

    Summary: There was no fault in the care the Council-commissioned care home provided to Ms X's father, Mr Y. The Council also appropriately investigated and responded to Ms X's complaint.

  • London Borough of Islington (19 019 259)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 25-Feb-2021

    Summary: The Council was at fault for the delay in its safeguarding investigation about Mrs Y. This did not result in a significant injustice as the evidence shows that Mrs Y was well looked after and happy during this delay period. We have completed our investigation.

  • London Borough of Islington (19 015 143)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 15-Feb-2021

    Summary: The complainant, Mr B, said the Council and the NHS Trust failed to safeguard his vulnerable adult brother from financial abuse between 2010 and 2015 when he lived in a supported housing placement. We found the Council had sufficient safeguards in place in line with its safeguarding responsibilities. The Trust had a policy in place to safeguard patients' property and valuables but its investigation highlighted weaknesses around managing patient's finances and cash handling. The Trust's investigation is enough to remedy doubt the complainant may have about its handling of his brother's finances. The Trust agreed to our recommendations and will tell us what it has done to improve since it became aware of the weaknesses in its processes. It will also write to the complainant.

  • London Borough of Tower Hamlets (20 002 305)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 05-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mrs B complained about how the Council dealt with allegations of financial abuse by a carer employed by an agency providing homecare on its behalf, and about how the Council dealt with the complaint about that. We have found there was fault by the Council in these matters and that as a result Mrs B was caused unnecessary distress and time and trouble seeking to have matters resolved. The Council has agreed to take appropriate action to remedy this injustice.

  • Middlesbrough Borough Council (19 012 844)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 04-Feb-2021

    Summary: A CAB adviser complained on behalf of Ms X that the Council failed to properly manage her finances after becoming an appointee. She says this mismanagement resulted in employment support allowance and housing benefit overpayments of more than £12,000. The Council failed to notify the Department for Work and Pensions of changes to Ms X's circumstances and failed to spend the benefit in Ms X's best interests which were its duties as appointee. The overpayments of benefits would not have occurred if the Council had acted correctly as appointee.

  • East Sussex County Council (19 019 234)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 02-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's management and investigation of safeguarding concerns she raised regarding her mother. We find no fault with the Council's actions.

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.