Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Gloucestershire County Council (19 006 719)

    Statement Not upheld Other 18-Dec-2019

    Summary: Miss H complained the Council had failed to take appropriate action although it acknowledged an assessment on her son should not have been issued. Miss H was still in dialogue with the Council and hoped it would resolve these outstanding matters. As this case is primarily about data protection and records matters, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) is best placed to investigate if the Council fails to take the appropriate remedial action.

  • Surrey County Council (19 003 585)

    Statement Upheld Other 16-Dec-2019

    Summary: Ms X complains on behalf of herself and her son, Mr B, about the way the Council handled safeguarding for Mr B, and Ms X's subsequent complaint. She says safeguarding decisions were based on inaccurate information. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for the way it handled Ms X's complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and Mr B, and has met with them to discuss annotating its records. The Ombudsman does not uphold the other parts of Ms X's complaint. This is because we find no evidence of fault.

  • Derby City Council (18 018 212)

    Statement Upheld Other 13-Dec-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsmen found fault by the Trust and Council with regards to the care and support they provided to a young person with autism and her family. The Ombudsmen also found fault by the Council in its handling of the Child Protection process in this case. The Council and Trust will apologise to the family and pay a financial remedy in recognition of the impact these events had on them. They will also review their procedures to prevent similar problems occurring in future.

  • London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (19 000 538)

    Statement Upheld Other 10-Dec-2019

    Summary: Ms V complained the Council failed to treat her and her family appropriately in relation to contact with her youngest child, W. There is evidence of fault and the Council has agreed to carry out a number of actions such as making an apology, amending its records, and ensuring its contact centre is fit for purpose by carrying out an assessment to check the centre is in line with standards expected by the National Association for Contact Centres as the relevant professional body.

  • London Borough of Hackney (18 017 259)

    Statement Upheld Other 19-Nov-2019

    Summary: Ms J complains the Council failed to tell her an assessment it planned to carry out was not mandatory. There is evidence of fault in the way the Council carried out the assessment and how it investigated Ms J's complaints following this. The Council is asked to re-offer a payment to Ms J to acknowledge the time, trouble and distress it caused her. It is also asked to make procedural changes.

  • Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (18 006 248)

    Statement Upheld Other 15-Nov-2019

    Summary: the Health and Care Professions Council found the social worker dealing with Ms X and her children in 2015 breached standards of conduct, performance and ethics, and his actions put Ms X at risk of harm. The Council has apologised and offered a payment of £1,000. I consider this a satisfactory response.

  • Derbyshire County Council (18 013 904)

    Statement Upheld Other 12-Nov-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council was at fault in the way it responded to her request for help with issues concerning her daughter, Z. She says this caused the family prolonged stress and meant they had to pay for private assessments of Z. The worker arrived at her views without procedural fault. However, one piece of advice was unwise, and the Council took too long to deal with Mrs X's complaint. Its apologies are sufficient.

  • Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (19 001 792)

    Statement Not upheld Other 06-Nov-2019

    Summary: Miss X complains about the decision to remove her daughter for a week and place her with her maternal grandmother. She says this disrupted her daughter's normal routine and caused them both considerable distress. The Council acted following another report of Miss X's daughter witnessing domestic abuse. The Council acted appropriately to safeguard the child and there is no fault in its actions.

  • Nottinghamshire County Council (19 003 106)

    Statement Upheld Other 01-Nov-2019

    Summary: There was fault in the way the Council investigated allegations against Mr X. The Council offered a financial remedy, but Mr X feels the Council should offer more. The Council should offer additional financial remedy to recognise the significant and prolonged period of distress. The Ombudsman is not able to assess Mr X's claim for reduced earnings.

  • Northamptonshire County Council (18 014 059)

    Statement Upheld Other 25-Oct-2019

    Summary: the Council failed to follow its procedures when conducting a child in need investigation, misled Mr B, delayed closing the case and delayed responding to his complaint. That left Mr B frustrated, uncertain about whether the outcome would have been different but for the fault and led to him going to time and trouble to pursue his complaint. An apology, procedural changes and payment to Mr B is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.