Safeguarding


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • East Sussex County Council (16 015 241)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 09-Aug-2017

    Summary: The Council was at fault in the way in which it carried out a safeguarding enquiry following a fall Mr K suffered while in residential care. But the Council remedied matters by holding a second enquiry and investigating matters properly. There was also fault causing injustice insofar as the Council did not ensure that a different respite care home refunded the cost of property that went missing.

  • Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (16 011 448)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 08-Aug-2017

    Summary: The Council significantly delayed completing a safeguarding investigation into allegations of abuse at care homes owned by the complainant. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the complainant's injustice.

  • North East Lincolnshire Council (17 005 088)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 07-Aug-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X's complaint that her son was placed at risk while receiving treatment under section 3 of the Mental Health Act. This is because the services Miss X complains about were provided by the NHS, not the Council. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the actions of the NHS.

  • London Borough of Hounslow (16 010 076)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 03-Aug-2017

    Summary: Ms C complained about the way in which the Council dealt with safeguarding alerts raised against her uncle. I found there has been fault by the Council.

  • Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (17 001 735)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 02-Aug-2017

    Summary: There is no evidence of fault on the part of the Council in respect of Mr A. Mr A no longer represents his brother Mr B. The complaint is not upheld.

  • Hampshire County Council (17 002 768)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 27-Jul-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A's late complaint about the actions of the care provider regarding his mother's, Mrs B's care in 2014. This is because Mr A could have complained sooner so there are no good reasons for us to disapply the law in this case.

  • London Borough Of Brent (16 011 742)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 27-Jul-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council's responses to the complainant. This is because we are unlikely to add to the Council's previous investigation.

  • North Yorkshire County Council (16 006 339)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 26-Jul-2017

    Summary: The Council is at fault as it did not properly notify Mrs X that a case conference had been rescheduled and not adjourning the case conference when Mrs X had to leave. As a result Mrs X lost the opportunity to have her say at the meeting. The Council should remedy this injustice as recommended.

  • London Borough of Croydon (17 003 769)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 18-Jul-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A's complaint about the Council's failure to validate information it received about her. This is because the Council has apologised for its actions and agreed to pay Ms A £100. The Ombudsman is satisfied this remedies the injustice to Ms A.

  • Suffolk County Council (17 004 577)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 18-Jul-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A's complaint about the Council's failure to properly consider a further complaint from her. This is because it is unlikely he could add to the Council's response or provide Ms A with a different outcome even if he investigated.

;