The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the minutes of a safeguarding conference. This is because we could not add to the Council’s complaints investigation.
The complaint
Ms X complains about the way minutes of a safeguarding conference were produced by the Council.
Ms X says the minutes were produced after a 6-week delay, are not a comprehensive record of a 3-hour meeting and are full of gaps. She says the Council allowed Charlton Park Nursing Home (the Home) to add inaccurate comments to the minutes.
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 do not start an investigation if we decide 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 Council. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant that includes the Council’s response.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council’s complaints responses explain the reasons for the delay and gaps by admitting the original notes were lost when the note taker left. It clarifies the minutes were written after requesting contributions from everyone present including Ms X. It goes on to say this is not an ideal situation as the minutes cannot be guaranteed to reflect the ‘highest standard of accuracy’.
Overall, the Council apologises to Ms X. But it finds the Home’s comments did not affect the safeguarding outcome. It points to the number of complaints against the Home that were substantiated and partially substantiated. It reiterates the Home was found to be negligent in several aspects of the care provision. And that this has been reported to the commissioning service that monitors care homes plus the Safeguarding Adults Board.
The Council strongly denies bias towards the Home and says it has no interest in supporting third parties to be untruthful. As a remedy, it proposes to ask for the minutes to be amended to show they were completed later through notes/recollections from the attendees. Also that the minutes should record that Ms X disputes the comments made by the Home.
We will not investigate. The Council has responded reasonably to Ms X’s complaint. Further investigation by us could achieve no more than this. If we investigated, it is likely we would have asked to Council to put a copy of Ms X’s comments, to lie alongside the Council’s minutes of the meeting. But the Council has already provided this remedy.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we could achieve nothing more to add to the Council’s investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman