Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (18 019 501)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 25-Feb-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide adequate community care support to Mr Y as a vulnerable person causing distress and the loss of his council tenancy. We found fault as the Council failed to provide an annual support plan, remain in contact with Mr Y when he moved out of the area, transfer his case to the new council, and delayed carry out a financial assessment. But this fault did not cause Mr Y an injustice, so we have completed our investigation.

  • Kent County Council (19 008 152)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 18-Feb-2020

    Summary: There was no fault, based on evidence the Ombudsman has seen, in the Council's decision to charge Ms C for Council funded residential care or in its conclusion that Ms C was not eligible to section 117 after care. The Council has already upheld Mr B's complaint that there were errors in Ms C's records. The Council has agreed to apologise and to pay £100 for the distress caused by the errors.

  • Lincolnshire County Council (19 000 662)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 10-Feb-2020

    Summary: Ms C complained the Council failed to properly consider a safeguarding referral and delayed completing its investigation. The Council failed to follow its procedure when considering the safeguarding concern, failed to document its decision and delayed completing a later investigation. That did not affect the Council's decision but caused Ms C some distress. An apology and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

  • Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (19 008 424)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 10-Feb-2020

    Summary: Miss X complains about the way the Council handled a report of a safeguarding concern for her grandfather in a care home, and her subsequent complaint. She says it caused unnecessary distress and trauma, and cost her time and trouble. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council.

  • London Borough of Hackney (19 002 845)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 07-Feb-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman has not found fault in the way the Council responded to safeguarding referrals except that there was a delay in the start of one of the enquiries. There is no fault in the Council's decision to restrict Ms B's contact with the Council but the restriction should be time limited and subject to review. The Council also did not explain clearly how it considered the relevant guidance in making an ordinary residence decision. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms B and to write to her regarding the restrictions in her communication and its considerations of the ordinary residence decision.

  • Cornwall Council (18 001 602)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 30-Jan-2020

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council's offer to pay £10,260 for his care between 30 November 2015 to 9 September 2016, after cancelling his direct payments, fails to reflect the true cost of his care or the fact he continued to need care after 9 September 2016. There is not enough evidence for me to say the Council's offer of £10,260 is inadequate.

  • Buckinghamshire County Council (19 005 339)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 27-Jan-2020

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to act to safeguard her sister, Mrs Z, from harm. She says it also failed to carry out a proper safeguarding review after Mrs Z's death and that these failings have caused distress to her family. There was no fault by the Council.

  • Worcestershire County Council (18 018 809)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 16-Jan-2020

    Summary: Mr X complains about the support provided to Mrs Y by the Council and the way it dealt with his complaints about this, which included safeguarding concerns. He says this impacted significantly on Mrs Y's health and wellbeing and caused the family much distress, time and trouble. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault in all these issues. The Council will apologise and pay Mr X £500. It will also check all residents have adequate care plans and records and monitor improvements. It will also re-train staff in complaint handling.

  • North East Lincolnshire Council (19 004 233)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 24-Dec-2019

    Summary: The complaint is about care arrangements for Mr and Mrs B when Mrs B went home from hospital after a fall. There was no fault in the Council's discharge planning which was in line with the Care Act 2014 and Mental Capacity Act 2005. And, there is no evidence Mrs B's care arrangements caused Mr B's health to decline or led to his admission into care. So we do not uphold this complaint.

  • Westminster City Council (19 009 583)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 17-Dec-2019

    Summary: We uphold Mr D's complaints. The Council failed to act in line with sections 194 and188 of the Housing Act 1996 and with sections 9 and 42 of the Care Act 2014 when dealing with Mr D. The Council also failed to consider the need to make reasonable adjustments to its services. This was fault and caused avoidable Mr D anxiety. To remedy the injustice, the Council has agreed to: take a homeless application, consider whether it needs to provide interim accommodation, carry out a social care assessment and establish whether there is any current risk of abuse to Mr D in Westminster before agreeing with him whether he wishes to be referred to another area's safeguarding adults team or to the police. Mr D will need to attend the Council's offices for appointments with housing and social care staff and he will need to sign consent forms.