The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled safeguarding concerns relating to Mrs Y’s actions around her son’s (Mr X’s) finances, care and medical needs. Any fault in its actions did not cause the injustice Mrs Y claims it did.
The complaint
Mrs Y complains about how the Council dealt with safeguarding concerns relating to her and her son (Mr X) in 2021, which she says were later found to be without substance. It delayed telling Mrs Y about the concerns for several weeks and delayed starting a safeguarding enquiry for over two months. Mrs Y says these events caused significant distress, impacting family relationships and contributing to the decline of her husband’s health. They affected Mr X’s quality of life, his safety and wellbeing. Mrs Y wants an apology, refund of legal costs and compensation for the distress and the time and trouble.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council received concerns relating to several aspects of Mr X’s life, between February and May 2021. Mr X lives in this Council’s area, so it holds the duty to carry out any safeguarding enquiries that may be needed and to take action, or arrange for others to take action, to reduce any risk to Mr X.
Mrs X says the Council did not tell her concerns had been raised about her actions until several weeks after it first received them. It also did not begin a Section 42 enquiry (a full safeguarding investigation) relating to the concerns until May 2021. I have seen the records the Council kept for this period. It discussed the case with another council which funded Mr X’s care (Council B). The councils considered whether the concerns would better be dealt with as a care management issue, which would mean the responsibility fell to Council B instead. However, these discussions, along with further information the Council received at various points, ultimately led it to decide it should begin a Section 42 enquiry.
If we investigated this complaint, it is possible we would find fault in the time it took the Council to begin these formal enquiries and tell Mrs Y about the concerns. However, in deciding whether it is in the public interest to investigate complaints, we must also consider whether a complainant was caused a significant injustice.
In this case, I am satisfied that any fault we would find did not cause the injustice Mrs X claims. Mrs X’s assertion the claims were later found to be without substance is not accurate, and the Council took action, and caused others to take action, to reduce the risk to Mr X. The Council’s ultimate duty in such circumstances is to Mr X, and it was entitled to take these steps based on the information available to it at the time. While the family experienced distress with subsequent relationship breakdowns and decline in health, this is a natural consequence of Section 42 enquiries and is not because of any fault by the Council. Had the Council commenced its enquiry sooner, the outcome would not have been any different.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint because any fault in the Council’s actions did not cause injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman