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.

Safeguarding


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • London Borough of Newham (20 009 733)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 03-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained about the suitability of his brother's care placement and care. We found there was no fault in the way the Council considered the concerns raised by Mr X.

  • Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (19 020 444)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 28-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mrs D says the Council failed to adequately investigate safeguarding alerts about her late mother, Mrs C, regarding financial abuse and neglect. She says the Council's failures caused injustice to her in the form of distress and to her mother's estate in the form of financial loss. The Council accepted it was at fault for a failure to arrange family mediation in 2018. But it was also at fault for failures in its safeguarding procedures. These failures caused Mrs D injustice. The Council has already paid for Mrs C's outstanding care. It has agreed to pay Mrs D a sum in consideration of her time, trouble, distress and expenditure.

  • Kingston Upon Hull City Council (18 015 760)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 26-Jul-2021

    Summary: Kingston Upon Hull City Council, Molescroft Nursing Home Limited and Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited all acted with fault when supporting Mrs B. Those faults include personal care, unfairly charging a top-up, best interest decision making, safeguarding investigations, and complaint handling. Those faults had an emotional and financial impact on Mrs B's son, Mr A.

  • London Borough of Croydon (20 008 908)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 15-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not protect his late grandmother from financial abuse and did not involve him in her care and financial decisions as had been agreed. He said that as a result a relative financially abused her and home care fees were not paid. There was some fault by the Council but it did not cause significant injustice to Mr X.

  • Plymouth City Council (20 004 082)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 13-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained about poor quality care provided to his mother at the Drake Nursing Home. We have identified fault because it failed to have a diabetes management plan in place. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a modest, symbolic payment to Mr X. We have not found fault with other matters complained about.

  • Warwickshire County Council (20 013 287)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 12-Jul-2021

    Summary: There was fault in communication by the Council after Mrs X reported safeguarding concerns about her late mother. The Council has already taken appropriate action to remedy the injustice and so we have not made recommendations.

  • Coventry City Council (20 005 425)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 06-Jul-2021

    Summary: X complained about the way the Council managed their relative, Y's, care. There was no fault in the way the Council assessed Y's capacity or prepared Y for a move to supported living. The Council was at fault as Y received poor care at his Council-commissioned residential placement which caused Y and X distress. The Council investigated and upheld there was poor care but has not offered an appropriate remedy. The Council has agreed to apologise to X and Y and make a financial remedy to acknowledge the poor care and distress caused.

  • Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (20 009 946)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 05-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained a council social worker made false accusations against him which resulted in his employer suspending him. Mr X says the evidence the Council gave his employer was inaccurate and his employer considered the accusations false. Mr X says the Council's action caused him to lose full pay for 10 days along with ill-health and distress. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council.

  • Lincolnshire County Council (20 005 057)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 05-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's actions in relation to a safeguarding investigation about his company. We do not find the Council to be at fault. It acted properly and in accordance with the relevant law and policy.

  • London Borough of Bexley (19 015 102)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 01-Jul-2021

    Summary: There is no fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr X's parents when his brother was no longer able to care for them. There is also no fault in the way the Council raised concerns with the Office of the Public Guardian about Mr X's application for Lasting Power of Attorney.