Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (25 010 179)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 31-May-2026

Summary: Mrs X complained the council did not safeguard her relative, Mr Y. She also complained the Council did not respond to her complaint. Mrs X said this distressed her and Mr Y was left in an unsafe situation, resulting in harm and hospital admission. There was fault in the way the Council did not consider safeguarding reports and did not respond to Mrs X’s complaint. This frustrated Mrs X and caused her uncertainty. The Council agreed to apologise and make a financial payment.

Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (25 003 062)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 28-May-2026

Summary: Ms X complained about the standard of her reablement care after she suffered a stroke. The Council was at fault because the care provider failed to follow its no reply policy when Ms X fell at home. This caused Ms X uncertainty and avoidable distress which the Council agreed to provide a financial remedy for.

Warwickshire County Council (25 010 281)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 27-May-2026

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council failing to ensure improvements were made to care services provided to her late mother, Mrs Y. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council and Mrs X’s personal injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

West Sussex County Council (25 026 869)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 26-May-2026

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a mental health crisis team. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate.

Cambridgeshire County Council (25 008 802)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 20-May-2026

Summary: The Council was at fault for not consulting with Mrs X about the outcome of a safeguarding enquiry regarding the care her mother, the late Mrs Y, received in a care home. The Council has apologised to Mrs X and said it will make service improvements. This is an appropriate remedy for the distress caused. The Council also failed to consult with the Ambulance Service during the safeguarding enquiry, but this did not cause an injustice to Mrs X.

Medway Council (25 004 902)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 14-May-2026

Summary: Mx Y complains about the Council’s response to a safeguarding referral it received about abuse by a care worker. We find the Council ended its safeguarding involvement prematurely. Although the Council later resumed its investigation, the earlier decision to close the enquiry caused avoidable distress. Mx Y also complains the care provider failed to deliver the agreed level of care to meet their assessed needs. We find fault because the provider did not consistently deliver the care hours the Council assessed as necessary. The Council will complete the remedial actions listed at the end of this statement.

Hertfordshire County Council (25 020 750)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 13-May-2026

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding. The person using the service has died so has no injustice for us to now consider and remedy. The person making the complaint does not have a significant enough injustice to justify our involvement.

Lincolnshire County Council (25 014 744)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 12-May-2026

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards assessment carried out with her father shortly before he died. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (25 001 396)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 11-May-2026

Summary: There was fault by the Council. It failed to inform Ms X about safeguarding concerns against her, failed to keep a record of decision-making, failed to liaise with another agency, failed to tell her it had ended a safeguarding enquiry and delayed responding to her complaint. This caused her avoidable distress and time and trouble. The Council will issue a symbolic payment and a written reminder to relevant council staff.

London Borough of Enfield (25 008 604)

Statement Upheld Safeguarding 11-May-2026

Summary: Mr B complained about the way the Council handled an incident involving his son, Mr C, during transport to college and the subsequent safeguarding investigation. We found the Council’s initial decision-making process was flawed and it delayed excessively on several occasions causing distress to Mr B and Mr C. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and Mr C, make a symbolic payment, provide services to him and improve its procedures for the future.