Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • London Borough of Southwark (18 003 210)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 12-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mr and Mrs Y complained the Council and the care provider, acting on behalf of the Council, failed to provide appropriate care and support to Mrs Y's relative, Mr X. The evidence shows there was no fault in the care provider's decision to request a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and the way it addressed his risk of falling. The care provider failed to take appropriate action when Mr X left large amounts of cash around, wrongly charged Mr X a third party top up, and did not accurately complete food and fluid charts. It has agreed to review its procedures. The Council has agreed to remove the third party top up charge and pay Mr and Mrs Y £250 to acknowledge the uncertainty caused by its actions.

  • Birmingham City Council (17 018 314)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 29-Mar-2019

    Summary: Ms P complained that a council and NHS Trust took too long to arrange her mother Mrs D's discharge from hospital and did not do so properly. Then, they were forced to accept a care home which was known to provide poor care. Mrs D was neglected and abused there. The council did not respond properly and closed its safeguarding investigation without good cause. The Ombudsmen find that the Council and Trust delayed the discharge, and did not properly consider possible options. They caused the family to believe they had to accept a placement they did not want, or Mrs D would be forced to leave hospital the next week. The council gave them incorrect information about care costs. The council did not properly ensure Mrs D was safe after an alleged assault. The council closed the safeguarding enquiry without investigating properly and ensuring others were safeguarded. The Ombudsmen recommend actions to address this.

  • Leeds City Council (17 020 442)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 29-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the care provided to Mr Y and delays with a safeguarding investigation which upheld allegations of neglect and organisational abuse by Amore Elderly Care Limited. She also complains about the lack of suitable care homes and confusion over what care Mr Y needed. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault in the care provided and the delay, but not in the other matters. The Council caused Mrs X and her family much distress, time and trouble and has agreed to pay Mrs X and her sister £750 each, and waive or refund Mr Y's care costs from 1 February 2015.

  • East Riding of Yorkshire Council (18 005 929)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 29-Mar-2019

    Summary: Ms C complained about the respite care the Council had arranged for her (late) father at a care home. She also complained about the way in which the Council responded when she raised concerns about his care. The Ombudsman decided to uphold the complaint. As such, the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms C for the distress she suffered. It will also pay her a financial remedy for the care she provided to her father and it will share the lessons learned with relevant staff.

  • Herefordshire Council (18 009 532)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 22-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr D complains that the Council did not deal with a safeguarding referral about his father, Mr B, because it did not investigate properly, did not consider alternative care options and shared information with the Care Provider before it had completed a safeguarding investigation. There was fault by the Council in how it dealt with a safeguarding review meeting. The Council has already partly upheld Mr B's complaint about this and made recommendations that will prevent the issue happening again. This is sufficient to remedy any injustice caused.

  • Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (18 009 482)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 20-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr C complained the Council failed to properly consider a safeguarding referral, delayed responding to his complaint and failed to address all the concerns he raised. There is no fault in how the Council considered the safeguarding referral. The Council delayed responding to the complaint and did not address all the concerns raised. That caused Mr C frustration and led to him going to time and trouble to pursue his complaint. An apology is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

  • Leicestershire County Council (18 011 386)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 20-Mar-2019

    Summary: The Council acted correctly to safeguard Mr C, under the relevant laws. It took proper account of his capacity to make decisions, including who to share information with. The Council delayed confirming the costs of temporary accommodation, and may not have taken account of all relevant information during the financial assessment; it should redo the assessment. The Council failed to provide its final complaint response to Mrs B which left her feeling fobbed off; the Council has already apologised and updated procedures, which was appropriate action in response.

  • Wolverhampton City Council (18 014 166)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 18-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to deal properly with safeguarding concerns about her late father. The evidence does not support the claim that there was significant fault by the Council over its handling of the safeguarding concerns.

  • Hertfordshire County Council (18 006 090)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 18-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains of fault by the Council in transporting his mother, Mrs X to a day care placement and in failing to properly investigate failings by the care provider. He says she suffered harm as a result. We are not able to find fault with the Council.

  • Birmingham City Council (18 010 108)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 05-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council continued to refer to a false allegation about him in court reports concerning his grandson Mr Y. The Council was entitled to refer to factual information about the allegation having been reported to its social worker. However it failed to amend the report to say it had previously found the allegation about Mr X was unsubstantiated. It has agreed to make this amendment, apologise to Mr X and pay him £150.