The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not updating the complainant about safeguarding concerns he raised to it about another person. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, or the complainant suffering an injustice.
The complaint
The complainant (Mr K) complains about the Council’s handling of an adult safeguarding referral he made. The referral to the Council was in relation to Mr K’s concerns that a vulnerable person may be at risk of abuse and/or harm. He says the Council failed to respond to the concerns he had raised, nor update him as to whether any investigation had concluded or is ongoing.
In summary, Mr K says he feels let down by the Council by not failing to take him and his concerns seriously. As a desired outcome, he wants the Council to be held accountable for the alleged failings and to provide training to its officers involved in safeguarding matters.
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 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Everyone has a responsibility to raise an alert if they have concerns for the welfare of a vulnerable adult. Section 42 of the Care Act 2014 requires that each local authority must make enquiries, or ensure others do so, if it believes an adult is experiencing, or is at risk of, abuse or neglect.
At the time Mr K made a safeguarding referral to the Council, he had a working relationship with the person he had concerns was both vulnerable and at risk of harm. As I understand, on the same day concerns were raised to the Council, Mr K’s working relationship with that person ended. I recognise why Mr K would want to know that his concerns have been take seriously. This being said, information, particularly when this is sensitive and relates to personal data about other others, should only be disclosed on a “need to know” basis. Further, information should only be shared when it is in the best interests of the vulnerable person or other vulnerable adults who may be at risk of being abused. The Council has explained to Mr K that it did not contact him with an update because it was of the understanding he was no longer involved with the person he made a referral about. The Council also noted it had not received any consent from the adult to share information with Mr K. On this basis, the Council did not consider it appropriate to share information with him. I am satisfied with the reasons given by the Council’s and see no evidence of fault in this respect.
In any event, Mr K does not have a direct interest in the outcome of any safeguarding action undertaken by the Council. The Ombudsman is only required to accept a complaint where the complainant has been caused a significant and personal injustice because of fault by the Council. This means Mr K would need to show he has suffered serious loss, harm or distress due to the Council not contacting him in relation to his referral. Mr K’s complaint concerns possible harm to another adult with whom he no longer has involvement with. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights gives everyone the right to respect for private family life, home and correspondence. Authorities can only interfere with this if they are working within the law, are pursuing a legitimate aim and the action taken is no more than is needed to achieve the legitimate aim of protection. Given Mr K’s was no longer involved with the adult, there is unlikely to be any benefit to the Council sharing information with him.
Everyone has a responsibility to raise an alert if they have concerns for the welfare of a vulnerable adult. The Council was right to thank Mr K in its complaint response for taking the time to raise his concerns through the appropriate channels. That being said, there is no evidence of Mr K suffering an injustice by reason of the alleged fault. I also see no reason why Mr K would need to receive an update on the substantive issues from the Council as such information sharing would not benefit to the vulnerable person.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, or Mr K suffering an injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman