close

Nottinghamshire care provider fined £363,000 after resident was raped

gavel

A Nottinghamshire care provider has been fined £363,000 after a woman was raped by another care home resident.

The provider, which cannot be named for legal reasons, pleaded guilty to failing to protect the woman from abuse and improper treatment after being prosecuted by the CQC at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court.

The CQC said the care provider had failed to manage a man who had exhibited an escalating pattern of sexualised behaviour towards other residents, after 79 incidents were documented over a year and a half with eight residents and five staff affected.

Story continues below
Advertisement

This behaviour culminated in in April 2019 when the man entered a woman’s room and carried out a sexual assault. He was subsequently arrested and convicted of raping her.

Mary Cridge, CQC deputy chief inspector for adult social care, said: “People have a right to safe care and treatment, delivered in an environment where threats to their wellbeing – including abuse – are well managed.

“Sadly, this care provider did not meet these fundamental standards for residents at the home where this incident took place.

“The company’s failure to protect a vulnerable woman in its care from a resident who was known to present a sexual threat is appalling. The crime she was subjected to was avoidable.

“Similarly, the company’s lack of safeguards to protect all residents at the home from the risk of abuse was unacceptable.

“The majority of care providers do an excellent job. However, when a provider puts people in its care at risk of harm, we take action to hold it to account and protect people.

“I hope this prosecution reminds care providers they must always take all reasonable steps to manage risks to people’s safety, including ensuring people are safeguarded from abuse.”

Tags : AbuseCQCfineProsecutionrape
mm

The author Lee Peart

1 Comment

  1. I wonder if the rapist is going to be held accountable for his actions and fined in a similar manner?

    Interesting too that Mary Cridge did not mention the company’s failure to protect its staff as well as its residents, or what measures she believes the company could have taken to prevent the incidents. Did it, for example, try to evict the offending resident, but were blocked by social services, Covid regulations, protests by his family, or because no other care provider was willing to accept him? What were they supposed to do then? They couldn’t have just locked him in his room, so did they seek funding for extra 1:1 full-time supervision, and were denied on the grounds that his behaviour wasn’t serious enough? This report lacks sufficient detailed information to assess whether the company is fully at fault, or being unfairly singled out for all of the blame.

Leave a Response