Safeguarding


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (18 018 612)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 15-Nov-2019

    Summary: Ms X complains that a social worker unjustly accused Mr Y of making threats to kill a manager and this impacted his support and treatment. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the Council's actions.

  • East Sussex County Council (19 000 804)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 13-Nov-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council conducted a safeguarding adults investigation after allegations were made that involved him and his wife. He says it took too long and led to the couple losing income unnecessarily. The Council accepts there were faults in the investigation and that it took too long. This caused the couple distress for longer than necessary, for which the Council will pay them £500 as well as the actions it agreed before the complaint reached us. However, it is not possible to say Mr and Mrs X lost income during the investigation. This is because they resigned from the scheme under which they provided accommodation a few weeks after the safeguarding investigation started.

  • City of York Council (18 019 945)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 08-Nov-2019

    Summary: Mrs B complains on behalf of Mrs C that the Council did not properly manage a personal assistant it employed for Mrs C or properly conduct financial assessments in relation to Mrs C. The Council was at fault in the way the personal assistant service was managed after it took responsibility for it. Mrs C lost money as a result. The Council should review its procedures to ensure it properly documents and reviews services.

  • Luton Borough Council (18 016 910)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 06-Nov-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to deal properly with safeguarding concerns involving his mother in November 2018, causing them both much distress. The Council failed to deal with the concerns under its safeguarding policies or procedures, or take account of its duties under the Equalities Act 2010 and Mental Capacity Act 2015. It needs to apologise for the avoidable distress caused, pay financial redress and take action to ensure it deals properly with such matters in the future.

  • Gloucestershire County Council (19 002 938)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 04-Nov-2019

    Summary: Miss N complained the Council failed to fully investigate safeguarding concerns about her grandfather, Mr G. She said Mr G was at risk of physical, emotional and financial abuse, from his son, Mr S. The Council was not at fault.

  • Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (18 017 799)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 31-Oct-2019

    Summary: There is no evidence the outcome of the safeguarding investigation into Mrs X's fall was materially different without the evidence of one particular carer, as Mr A suggests. The Council has already apologised for some delay and taken action to ensure the care provider improves its practices.

  • Buckinghamshire County Council (19 000 746)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 31-Oct-2019

    Summary: When the Council was notified about concerns for Mr B's welfare, it failed to properly consider whether to carry out an assessment of Mr B's care and support needs and did not always properly consider whether to make safeguarding enquiries. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr B, and to take action to prevent similar failings in future.

  • Sheffield City Council (18 016 372)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 29-Oct-2019

    Summary: the Council was responsible for failing to provide a proper standard of care and treatment to Mr and Mrs X. The care provider it commissioned failed to order medication, left the medication within reach of vulnerable elderly adults, and on one occasion omitted essential medication, causing actual harm to Mr X.

  • Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (18 014 455)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 28-Oct-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide effective care of his daughter, Miss D, and failed to take responsibility for faults identified by himself and an independent Learning Review. He also complained about the way the Council handled his complaint. The Council was at fault for its failure to carry out an adult social care assessment, take Miss D's autism into account and in the way it handled safeguarding concerns. The Council also failed to communicate with Mr X both before and after Miss D's death and to properly conduct the complaints procedure. The Council should apologise to Mr X for these faults, make a financial payment for the unnecessary distress caused to them and provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has carried out the recommendations of the Learning Review.

  • Westminster City Council (19 003 404)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 14-Oct-2019

    Summary: The Council acted in line with sections 42 and 9 of the Care Act 2014 when responding to Ms A's concerns of abuse of her late mother by an informal carer and so there was no fault.