Summary: The complaint about the Council’s failure to properly safeguard the complainant’s mother, Mrs D will not be investigated. This is because Mrs D has now died, and we would be unable to remedy any personal injustice that she may have suffered. It is also unlikely investigation of the complaint would result in finding the Council at fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I call Ms C, complains on behalf of her late mother, Mrs D. Ms C says the Council failed to properly investigate safeguarding concerns that she and others had about her mother’s care. Ms C says Mrs D suffered neglect, emotional and financial abuse.
2. Ms C says the Council failed to protect her mother and she has had the anxiety and distress of watching her mother’s deterioration, with no one helping her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

4. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I spoke with Ms C and read the documents she provided. I considered information provided by the Council and the relevant law and guidance. This included:-
• Case notes and safeguarding report for Mrs D;
• Care and Support Statutory Guidance (CSSG) 2014 – this sets out the process councils should follow when completing a safeguarding investigation;
• Mental Capacity Act 2005 – this says that a person must be presumed to have capacity to make decisions unless there is evidence to the contrary;
• Local Government Act 1974 which sets out the responsibilities of the Ombudsman.
6. Ms C and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mrs D had four children. She lived in her own home and had carers to support her as she needed help with all of her personal and domestic care. X, one of Mrs D’s daughters had prime responsibility for organising Mrs D’s care and had been doing so for several years.
8. Ms C had no concerns about her mother’s care but after making several visits she noticed Mrs D appeared hungry. Ms C spoke with X and tried to resolve several issues which included Mrs D having access to physiotherapy services. However she became increasingly concerned after she learnt Mrs D had given Power of Attorney to X and her brother. Mrs D had always said she wanted the Power of Attorney to go to both her sons, not X. Y a neighbour, also contacted Ms C after Mrs D told her she was not getting enough to eat.
9. The Council completed a safeguarding investigation into Ms C’s concerns. During the investigation, the Council visited Mrs D and spoke with other independent parties.
10. During the Council’s visit with Mrs D the officers record her saying that she wanted to live on her own in her flat and had no concerns. She also said she wanted to have contact with all her children. There was no reason to question Mrs D’s capacity at the time.
11. The Council decided that on balance there was not enough evidence to say Mrs D was suffering from abuse or neglect and closed the safeguarding referral. It did however reassess Mrs D’s needs and increased her service provision. It also made a referral to the Occupational Therapy Department.
12. Ms C says the safeguarding investigation was inadequate and put her mother in danger. She says officers initially visited with the wrong interpreter and had to revisit with another person a few days later. X was aware of the visit and Ms C says during the intervening period X pressured, bullied, and prepared Mrs D for the questions the Council asked. Ms C says the views Mrs D expressed were therefore not her own and not of her own free will.

Back to top

Analysis

13. The Ombudsman is a free service but must decide how to use its resources efficiently. While I understand Ms C’s upset and frustration that she believes the Council did not properly protect Mrs D I do not intend to investigate this complaint further. This is for the following reasons:-
• Mrs D has now sadly passed away and we would be unable to remedy any potential injustice the Council’s failures may have caused her. Even though Ms C has her own potential injustice, this in itself is not enough to warrant an investigation.
• The Ombudsman cannot challenge a properly reached professional judgement. In this complaint officers spoke directly with Mrs D, and other independent people, none of whom had concerns about Mrs D’s welfare. The Council’s responsibility was to make a balance of probability finding which it did. Ms C says X influenced many professionals and agencies with untruths saying this was a family dispute. From the safeguarding information I have seen I cannot say officers had a one-sided view but were completing an impartial investigation collecting information from various sources.
• Ms C says Mrs D was coerced into saying what officers wanted to hear. This was in part caused by the Council’s initial error in sourcing the wrong interpreter. While I accept this may have been the case, I would be unable to say now whether Mrs D was coerced at the time; or had officers acted without fault Mrs D would have responded differently.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I have now discontinued the investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman