Portsmouth City Council (24 022 482)

Report Upheld Safeguarding 23-Jul-2026

Summary: Mrs Z complained about the poor standard of care her mother, Mrs Y, received in the months before her death. The Council has already accepted that the care commissioned from GP Homecare Ltd (usually known as Radis Community Care or Radis) fell below expected standards and that this placed Mrs Y at risk. While we agree with the Council’s findings, we also consider that the failings caused Mrs Y and Mrs Z significant personal injustice, which the Council has not yet fully remedied.

Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (25 020 134)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 14-Jul-2026

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his safeguarding concern. The claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (25 024 001)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 14-Jul-2026

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards application being authorised for Mrs Y. This is because there is another body better placed to consider part of this complaint and we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

London Borough of Camden (25 021 982)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 12-Jul-2026

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a safeguarding enquiry. We cannot investigate actions the Council took as a social landlord, and the Information Commissioner’s office is better placed to consider complaints about data handling. Of the remaining complaint, there is insufficient injustice and evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Halton Borough Council (24 023 386)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 09-Jul-2026

Summary: Mr X complained that, after he made allegations that his father’s care was inadequate, the Council did not inform the Care Quality Commission of its safeguarding investigation findings. He also says the findings did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the care provider’s failings. We have found fault in the Council’s delay in informing Mr X of the outcome of the safeguarding investigation. The Council also failed to inform the Care Quality Commission of its findings or to check the Care Provider had done so. However, these matters did not cause Mr X or his father significant injustice. And we have found no fault in the Council’s safeguarding enquiries.

Telford & Wrekin Council (25 008 993)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 07-Jul-2026

Summary: Mrs Y complained the Council placed her brother, Mr X, in unsuitable accommodation after he left hospital and did not provide proper care and support. She says this distressed him and caused medical problems. The Council was at fault. It delayed an accommodation referral, failed to deliver support and did not respond properly to complaints. The Council has agreed to apologise.

Essex County Council (25 020 036)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 05-Jul-2026

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council handled Mrs B’s personal data. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider a complaint.

Kingston Upon Hull City Council (26 004 060)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 02-Jul-2026

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a Council safeguarding decision. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Lincolnshire County Council (26 004 146)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 02-Jul-2026

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint alleging safeguarding failures as it is late. There are no good reasons to investigate now.

Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (25 018 791)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 25-Jun-2026

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council considered safeguarding concerns about her child, shortly before their death. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to exercise discretion to consider it now. In any case, it is unlikely that we could add anything meaningful to the coroner’s court investigation and so there would be no worthwhile outcome achievable by our involvement.