The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled a safeguarding investigation. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
Mrs X’s complaint included the Council failed to: consider safeguarding concerns received from another Council about her daughter, Miss Y; properly assess Miss Y’s needs and provide the appropriate support; work effectively with other bodies involved; and assess Miss Y’s capacity to make decisions about finances and relationships.
Mrs X says the issue meant Miss Y spent longer than necessary in an abusive situation, resulting in significant distress. Mrs X would like the Council to provide explanations, correct records, apologise and review its safeguarding procedures.
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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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
Miss Y moved into the Council’s area from another Council’s (Council B’s) area.
Mrs X says the Council failed to consider safeguarding concerns referred from Council B, however the Council says it did not receive a safeguarding referral.
Mrs X raised her concerns with the Council about Miss Y’s finances and relationships, and her mental capacity to make decisions about these matters. The Council spoke with Miss Y. Miss Y denied any issues regarding her peers and identified the support she wanted from the Council relating to other matters.
The Mental Capacity Act 2005 states a person aged 16 or over must be presumed to have capacity to make a decision unless it is established they lack capacity. While the Council considered the concerns Mrs X raised and provided support to Miss Y, it did not identify any evidence Miss Y lacked capacity. Its support was therefore in line with Miss Y’s expressed wishes, and ultimately any decisions were Miss Y’s to make.
The Council followed the legislation and there is no evidence of fault in how it decided Miss Y had mental capacity to make her own decisions. We cannot therefore question that decision. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions, and we will not investigate this complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman