The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the actions of an Appropriate Adult who was allocated to advocate for him after he was arrested in October 2020. This is because an investigation by this office could not add to the responses previously provided by the provider and the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains the Council has not fully investigated his complaint about the actions of an Appropriate Adult when he was arrested and in police custody in October 2020.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) We do not start an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complained about the actions of an Appropriate Adult (AA) who was allocated to advocate for him when he was in police custody after being arrested in October 2020. Mr X said the AA did not follow the AA procedures and did not properly advocate for him. He says this led to the police abusing his human rights and to him being withheld legal representation.
The Council commissions a provider to carry out the AA Service. The provider responded to Mr X’s complaint at stage 1 and 2 of its complaints procedure. Whilst it was able to answer some parts of the complaint it explained it held limited information about the support provided to Mr X. This was due both to the passage of time and the sensitive nature of support in custody which means only limited information is recorded. The provider said the report forms were designed to provide only a brief summary of concerns and notes raised during the support they provided. This was completed for internal monitoring purposes.
The provider asked the AA about the issues Mr X raised in his complaint. However due to the passage of time, and the number of adults she had subsequently supported, she was unable to recall any specific detail of the support provided to Mr X.
The provider identified improvements it would make in relation to record keeping and in reviewing its internal monitoring forms as a result of Mr X’s complaint.
The Council said it was satisfied the provider’s complaints procedure was robust and fit for purpose and the identified improvements had been actioned by the provider. It did not uphold his complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because due to the issues set out above regarding the limited available information and the passage of time we would not be able to add to the responses already provided via the provider’s investigation.
The complaint also lies outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because it is late. However, even if the complaint were not late, it is not a matter we would investigate for the reasons set out in paragraph 12, above.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman