15. Mrs O tells us that during a meeting with the college on 21 August 2023 she was informed of the sexual assault allegations concerning her daughter. She notified the CQC of these allegations the next day.
16. She is concerned that despite an inspection in February 2023 which found a lack of one-to-one supervision for residents, the CQC did not inform her of the risk presented to her daughter.
17. Mrs O says the CQC should have been aware of these incidents when it first inspected in February and is frustrated the CQC did not take appropriate action. Specifically, she says the CQC should have closed the college to avoid any harm being caused to her daughter.
18. She is also frustrated the CQC failed to prosecute the college once the sexual assault allegations came to light in August 2023 and following further information they supplied in the following months.
19. The CQC inspected the college from 20 to 23 February 2023. It found a lack of one-to-one support at the college (among other concerns). As a result, it rated the college as inadequate and placed it under special measures.
20. This meant the CQC had regular communication with the college and the commissioners of the service to closely monitor its progress. The next section of our statement will consider the CQC’s actions here in more detail.
21. The CQC inspected the college again August 2023 and found one-to-one supervision of residents appeared to be in place but there were still parts of the service which were of serious concern.
22. It says those serious concerns were informed by the information Mrs O had shared with it about the alleged sexual assault of her daughter. It says this formed part of its wider ongoing monitoring of the college.
23. The CQC raised safeguarding referrals with the local authority on 3 March and 23 August 2023. It says the latter referral was in response to information it received from Mrs O concerning the alleged sexual assault. It also made the police aware of these allegations.
24. Our Principles say public bodies should balance the evidence appropriately before reaching a decision.
25. The HSCA sets out the CQC’s powers and obligations in regulating the health and social care sector in England. Section 13 of the HSCA requires the CQC to investigate ‘and/or’ refer suspected abuse to an appropriate body.
26. CQC guidance and CQC special measures guidance sets out what action the CQC should take where a provider’s service is found to be below standard.
27. We will now respond to Mrs O’s concerns (set out at paragraph six) in more detail:
The CQC failed to take appropriate action in February 2023 and did not warn Mrs O of the risks posed to her daughter
28. Having carefully considered this element of Mrs O’s complaint, we are not persuaded the CQC did anything wrong.
29. Its February inspections found numerous problems in how the college was run and the potential risks this presented to its students.
30. It gave the college an ‘inadequate’ overall rating and correctly placed it under special measures in line with CQC special measures guidance. This guidance says any provider who is overall rated inadequate should immediately be placed under special measures.
31. As set out in paragraph 20, special measure means the CQC will closely monitor the college. It also means it should carry out further inspection within six months to review whether it has improved.
32. Alongside placing the college under special measures, the CQC took enforcement action by issuing a warning notice. A warning notice is issued when a provider ‘fails to comply with the relevant requirements’ under the HSCA or other relevant legislation.
33. This made it clear to the college where its service had failed and what it needed to do to improve.
34. The CQC inspected the college again on 3 August 2023, which is within the six months set out in CQC special measures guidance. This inspection was targeted and was partly in response to information it received from Mrs O.
35. We are therefore satisfied the CQC acted in line with applicable guidance in the actions it took following its February inspections.
36. We understand Mrs O says the CQC should have closed the college at this stage. CQC guidance and CQC special measures guidance directs the CQC to make a provider aware of its failings and what it needs to do to improve its service before the next inspection.
37. There must be very clear and strong grounds for the CQC to cancel a provider’s registration (i.e. to close it). CQC guidance says this action will most often come about where an organisation has repeatedly breached its obligations and has failed to cooperate or improve.
38. As set out above, we found the CQC acted in line with applicable guidance in the action it took following its February 2023 inspections. We do not see closing the college following its February 2023 inspections would be proportionate based on what we have seen.
39. We can see the CQC raised a safeguarding referral to the local authority on 3 March in response to what it had found during its February inspections.
40. We have seen a copy of this safeguarding referral and are satisfied it evidences the CQC correctly notified the appropriate body of its concerns in line with Section 13 of the HSCA.
41. It is important to set out here that the CQC’s safeguarding concern about Miss O at this stage do not include reference to sexual assault and refer to less serious incidents. We understand the more serious allegations came to light in the months after this referral was made.
42. We acknowledge Mrs O’s concern that the CQC should have informed her of the potential risk posed to her daughter following its February inspections. We appreciate these events have been very upsetting and distressing to Mrs O, their daughter and the wider family and being promptly notified of any risks posed to Miss O was vital.
43. An important point to make here is that section 13 requires the CQC to notify an appropriate body, rather than an individual such as the legal guardian.
44. We are therefore satisfied the CQC raised concerns with the appropriate body, i.e. the local authority, as it is required to under Section 13 of the HSCA. It was for the local authority to investigate the specific safeguarding referral and inform the relevant parties, including Mrs O.
45. We understand Mrs O subsequently attended a multi-agency meeting in May, which included representatives from the college and the local authority. This meeting discussed concerns which had been raised about their daughter’s care. Our understanding is that this meeting was likely informed by the safeguarding referral made by the CQC on 3 March.
The CQC failed to prosecute the college following evidence Mrs O supplied in 2023 and 2024
46. Mrs O supplied the CQC with information around the alleged sexual assault of her daughter on 22 August 2023.
47. She also explains she recently supplied the CQC with further evidence of the poor care her daughter received and her view that the CQC should prosecute those responsible at the college.
48. Mrs O says she is frustrated that despite being very clear with the CQC about what she believes the evidence shows, it decided not to prosecute.
49. The CQC raised a safeguarding referral with the local authority on 23 August following Mrs O’s call the previous day. We have seen this referral and can see it describes Mrs O’s concerns about the allegation of sexual assault involving her daughter and her poor care.
50. After being made aware of these allegations on 22 August the CQC promptly informed the appropriate body (the local authority) the next day, and alongside this, we also understand the police were notified.
51. We are therefore satisfied the CQC’s handling of this more recent and serious allegation of sexual assault is in line with its obligations under Section 13 of the HSCA, which we outlined earlier in this statement.
52. In terms of whether it will, or will not prosecute, the CQC explains in cases where someone is reported to have suffered avoidable harm it must be, ‘satisfied that evidence of any failings can be proven to a criminal standard, which is beyond reasonable doubt.’
53. It goes on to say, ‘…we had to be satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to provide prospect of conviction against the Registered Provider [the college].’ The CQC says after a careful review of the evidence it did not see there was sufficient evidence of failings to be able to prosecute.
54. It is not in our power to compel the CQC to prosecute the college. The CQC is a regulator and therefore has wide-ranging discretion about whether it will take regulatory action (which includes prosecution). It is therefore within the CQC’s gift to either pursue or not pursue any failings or shortcomings it identifies.
55. Our role is to consider whether the CQC considered all the available evidence before reaching its decision and whether it acted in line with applicable guidance and standards in its decision making.
56. We discussed this element of the complaint with Mrs O to get a better understanding of what she thinks the CQC did wrong.
57. Mrs O told us the CQC was supplied with all the relevant evidence prior to it reaching a decision. So, there is no suggestion here the CQC made its decision without first having access to all the relevant information.
58. Mrs O explains she has a police background and is aware of how to balance evidence and where the threshold lies when determining whether prosecution should be brought.
59. Mrs O essentially disagrees with the CQC’s interpretation of the evidence and what it shows.
60. Having considered this part of Mrs O’s complaint, we are not persuaded there is any indication the CQC failed to consider all the relevant evidence before reaching its decision. Rather, there appears to be a fundamental difference of opinion between Mrs O and the CQC about what the evidence shows.
61. A difference of opinion is not an indication of a failing. We are satisfied the CQC’s decision making in the above matters is in line with our principles.
62. We have therefore decided to take no further action in Mrs O’s complaint.
63. We appreciate Mrs O, Miss O and their family continue to be upset and distressed by their experience and recognise our decision will likely come as a disappointment. We hope our statement clearly sets out our decision and provides some clarity and reassurance in these matters.