The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not properly undertake a safeguarding investigation in relation to his father. The Council should have contacted Mr X when it decided the initial safeguarding concern did not meet the threshold for further investigation. This did not cause Mr X any injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains that the Council did not provide proper adult social care for his father because it: failed to provide training and employment information about a carer; did not undertake a safeguarding investigation properly as it didn’t take account of information and did not contact him as part of the investigation; and failed to handle his complaint properly as it did not investigate parts of his complaints about the Care Provider that it should have done.
Mr X says he suffered distress because he believes the failure of care has not been investigated properly and the outcome of the safeguarding investigation is wrong.
What I have investigated I have investigated that part of Mr X’s complaint about how the Council undertook a safeguarding investigation and handled his complaint. The final section of this statement contains my reasons for not investigating the rest of the complaint.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered documents he provided. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response and the supporting documents it provided.
Mr X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Law, guidance and policies A council must make enquiries if it has reason to think a person may be at risk of abuse or neglect and has care and support needs which mean the person cannot protect themself. An enquiry is the action taken by a council in response to a concern about abuse or neglect. An enquiry could range from a conversation with the person who is the subject of the concern to a more formal multi-agency arrangement. A council must also decide whether it or another person or agency should take any action to protect the person from abuse. (section 42, Care Act 2014) The Council’s safeguarding procedure On receipt of a Safeguarding Adults concern the Local Authority will ensure that a decision is made based on initial information gathered about whether to take forward a Section 42(2) enquiry from the first to the second stage within 2 working days.
Where the criteria for a statutory enquiry are not met, the Council will tell the person raising the concern that it is not a Section 42 matter and discuss options with the adult at risk such as signposting or referral to relevant services.
The Council’s safeguarding procedure says it should: Hold a conversation with the adult to get their views on what happened and an understanding of what outcomes and response they would like.
Clarify what evidence and assistance is needed; Document all decisions and actions; Ensure a safeguarding plan is in place if necessary; and Ensure enquiries made and actions taken are proportionate.
What happened?
This is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain everything I reviewed during my investigation.
Mr X’s father was in receipt of care at home which was funded through direct payments from the Council.
A letter from Mr X to the Council raised concerns about the care provided to Mr X’s father. The Council made initial enquiries and determined it did not meet the threshold for further s42 enquiries.
Mr X complained to the Council. The Council agreed to complete s42 enquiries.
Council completed a safeguarding investigation which did not identify any risk to Mr X’s father.
Mr X complained to the Council that the safeguarding investigation had not been undertaken properly.
Analysis It is clear that Mr X’s complaint is complicated by a parallel issue about charges for care. This does not form part of my investigation.
Initial Safeguarding concerns When the Council considered Mr X’s first concerns in January 2021, it considered them and determined that the threshold for s42 enquiries was not met.
The Council was not required to contact Mr X when it considered whether the safeguarding concern met the threshold for s42 enquiries. This is not fault by the Council.
The Council should have contacted Mr X after it had made the decision the initial safeguarding concern did not meet the threshold for s42 enquiries as outlined in paragraph 12 above. It did not do this. This is fault by the Council. This did not cause any injustice to Mr X.
Safeguarding investigation The Council proceeded to complete a s42 enquiry after Mr X complained. I have reviewed safeguarding documents provided by the Council relating to safeguarding concerns raised with it in January 2021.
It is clear from a review of the safeguarding documentation that: The investigation took account of a wide range of information; Actions and enquiries were recorded in the safeguarding enquiry; A range of appropriate enquiries were made regarding Mr B’s father’s circumstances.
It is clear that Mr X’s views were taken account of when making a decision at the end of the safeguarding investigation.
The safeguarding enquiry was completed in an appropriate timescale.
Whilst it is clear Mr X does not agree with the outcome, this was a decision the Council was entitled to make. This is not fault by the Council.
Final decision
I have found fault by the Council which did not cause injustice to Mr X. I have now completed my investigation.
Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate I have not investigated that part of Mr X’s complaint about the provision of information about a carer as this would be more appropriate for the Information Commissioner.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman