Summary: There was no fault in how the Council considered safeguarding concerns raised by Mrs Z about the care and support provided to Miss X between 2024 and 2025.

The complaint

1. Mrs Z complained on behalf of her daughter, Miss X.
2. Mrs Z complained the Council failed to properly investigate safeguarding concerns she raised about Miss X’s home care provider, Provider A between 2024 and 2025. She also complained the Council had not reviewed Miss X’s care plan and about issues relating to Miss X’s financial appointee.
3. Mrs Z said carers were rude and threatening to Miss X and stole money from her. This has caused distress and impacted on Miss X’s wellbeing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. Part of Mrs Z’s complaint relates to the actions of Miss X’s financial appointee (Appointee 1). This includes failing to release money when requested and refusing to release funds for certain requests. Appointee 1 is a private appointee who dealt with Miss X’s finances before the Council took over in the early part of 2024. Appointee 1 was set up to deal with Miss X’s finances independently from the Council and is a body we do not have jurisdiction over to investigate. Appointee 1 has its own complaints process which Mrs X should use if she remains unhappy with its actions. Complaints have not been raised about the Council’s conduct as an appointee, so again if Mrs Z has concerns she should raise this as a new complaint with the Council.
7. Other parts of Mrs Z’s complaints relate to allegations of theft and fraud against Miss X’s carers. There is evidence showing these allegations were reported to the Police which is the appropriate body to investigate crimes. I have not considered these allegations any further.
8. I have investigated matters relating to safeguarding referrals and Miss X’s care from January 2024 until May 2025. My investigation stops at May 2025 because a new care provider (Provider B) began providing care for Miss X. If Mrs Z or Miss X have further concerns after May 2025 they should raise a new complaint with the Council.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Mrs Z and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Mrs Z and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Safeguarding

11. A council must make enquiries if it thinks a person may be at risk of abuse or neglect and has care and support needs which mean the person cannot protect themselves. An enquiry is the action taken by a council in response to a concern about abuse or neglect. An enquiry could range from a conversation with the person who is the subject of the concern, to a more formal multi-agency arrangement. A council must also decide whether it or another person or agency should take any action to protect the person from abuse. (section 42, Care Act 2014).
12. Safeguarding enquiries are not a substitute for:
• A care providers’ responsibilities to provide safe and high-quality care and support
• the core duties of the police to prevent and detect crime and protect life and property
• the Care Quality Commission (CQC) ensuring that regulated providers comply with the fundamental standards of care or by taking enforcement action

(Paragraph 14.9, care and support statutory guidance)

Care Plans

13. The Care Act 2014 gives councils a legal responsibility to provide a care and support plan (or a support plan for a carer). The care and support plan should consider what needs the person has, what they want to achieve, what they can do by themselves or with existing support and what care and support may be available in the local area. 
14. Section 27 of the Care Act 2014 says councils should keep care and support plans under review. Government Care and Support Statutory Guidance says councils should review plans at least every 12 months.

Financial appointees

15. An adult financial appointee is someone authorised by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to claim, collect, and manage state benefits and the State Pension on behalf of a vulnerable person. The appointee must spend this money solely in the claimant's best interests and handle any necessary paperwork or reporting.
16. If someone’s relative cannot become an appointee then another organisation, a solicitor or the council can carry out the same role.

Care Quality Commission (CQC)

17. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is the statutory regulator of care services. It keeps a register of care providers that meet the fundamental standards of care, inspects care services, and reports its findings. It can also enforce against breaches of fundamental care standards and prosecute offences.

What happened

18. Miss X’s care and support is provided by an NHS Trust service on behalf of the Council and it is the NHS Trust which provided a complaint response for these matters. As the Council remained responsible for the service provided by the NHS trust I have used the term ‘the Council’ below rather than the NHS.
19. The below is a summary of events relevant to this complaint. It does not include everything that happened and is intended to give an overview of events only.
20. Mrs Z has an adult daughter, Miss X. Miss X has disabilities which means she needs care and support in everyday life. Although Miss X lives alone she requires help to keep routines, attend appointments and to keep her home clean and tidy. Miss X does not have the mental capacity to manage her own finances. Prior to 2024 an organisation (Appointee 1) managed her finances. However, responsibility transferred to the Council from March 2024 onwards.
21. Miss X received her care and support from Provider 1. Carers from Provider 1 visited Miss X at home for 6 hours each week to complete tasks such as cleaning, helping Miss X attend appointments, doing shopping and helping her maintain her nutrition and personal hygiene. There was also a mileage allowance of 60 miles a week for Miss X to be taken to various appointments.
22. Miss X also received regular support from her mother, Mrs Z, who is usually present for any care and support reviews and helps with contact with social workers.
23. Evidence and records show significant contact between Miss X and Mrs Z and the Council since 2024. The contact reasons vary from wanting money released for Miss X’s personal expenditure, carers not cleaning the house or taking Miss X to appointments and not paying for an allotment. Mrs Z confirmed the Council resolved the issue about the allotment.
24. Towards the end of 2024 Miss X and Mrs Z started raising concerns that Provider 1 was stealing money from Miss X. Records show Miss X and Mrs Z were also recording the actions of carers from Provider 1. The context of the recordings are unclear but Mrs Z said Provider 1 made threats to cancel Miss X’s care if it continued. The allegations of theft were reported to the Police.
25. In November 2024 Mrs Z contacted the Council to complain that Miss X had missed doctors appointments. In December 2024 Miss X spent some time in hospital. Mrs Z raised complaints that Provider 1 was failing to properly care for Miss X after she was discharged. The Council told Mrs Z her contact was becoming excessive.
26. In early 2025 records show further contact from Mrs Z about Provider 1 refusing to take Miss X to hospital appointments. The notes show Provider 1 was unable to always take Miss X to appointments which arose outside of her allocated care days. Provider 1 said it tried to support where possible but it did not have unlimited staff to attend appointments at the last minute. A social worker wrote to Mrs Z advising her of this.
27. Mrs Z complained to us in December 2024 about the care Miss X was receiving including not taking her to appointments, liaising with doctors and a lack of contact from the social worker. We asked the Council to first deal with the complaint through its complaints procedure.
28. A care review took place in January 2025 and it was agreed to increase Miss X’s care to 12 hours a week plus an additional three hours to cover medical appointments outside normal hours. The additional hours were to support Miss X with managing appointments, food shopping, medication, maintaining her home and attending the allotment/local community.
29. In February 2025 Provider 1 contacted the Council and raised concerns that Miss X and Mrs Z were making a number of allegations against a carer. This included further allegations of theft, of ripping up appointment letters and threatening Miss X with less care.
30. Provider 1 said it would need to change Miss X’s care so two carers visited to safeguarding them against these allegations. This would reduce the number of visits. In March 2025 Provider 1 informed Miss X that it was reducing her visits so care could be provided on a 2:1 basis.
31. In March 2025 Mrs Z made further allegations similar to those outlined above.
32. In April 2025 Provider 1 gave notice on Miss X’s care package due to the number of allegations which had caused a permanent breakdown in the relationship with Miss X. It continued to provide care on a 2:1 basis during the notice period and the Council began trying to source a new care provider.
33. The Council opened two safeguarding enquiries during April and May 2025 following the reports and allegations from Miss X and Mrs Z. Further allegations included:
• Carers shouting at Miss X
• Overdosing Miss X with medication
• Medication errors
• Not taking Miss X to appointments
• Not updating or reviewing Miss X’s care
34. The safeguarding records show the Council considered the allegations, spoke with Miss X and Mrs Z but decided the threshold was not met for a safeguarding enquiry. It decided the issues should be dealt with as a complaint as they concerned the quality of care provided to Miss X rather than safeguarding incidents and in any case Provider 1 had given notice to stop providing Miss X with care.
35. Provider 1 stopped providing Miss X’s care in April 2025. Records show Miss X did not have any carers in place during May 2025 but Mrs Z agreed to support her in the interim. The Council sourced Provider 2 to start providing Miss X with care and it carried out a care plan review at the end of May 2025 and issued an updated care plan. The care plan shows Miss X would receive 12 hours of support per week from Provider 2 and this began at the start of June 2025.
36. In line with the Council’s safeguarding enquiry Provider 1 provided a full complaint response to Mrs Z’s allegations. This was overseen by the CQC. The response from Provider 1 found no evidence to support Mrs Z’s allegations and so it did not uphold any complaints.
37. Provider 1 said care staff had been subjected to constant hostility and abusive behaviour along with false allegations in numerous areas. As a result this led to a breakdown in the relationship between it and Miss X which led to it not continuing with her care package. Despite repeated meetings between Miss X, Provider 1 and social workers it ultimately decided to end its service at the end of April 2025.
38. The Council provided a complaint response at the end of July 2025. It said
• There was regular and consistent communication between social care practitioners and Provider 1 about Miss X’s social care.
• Support to attend appointments was available in advance Monday to Friday. Unfortunately if appointments were made at weekends or short notice then support was not always available.
• Miss X’s care plan was reviewed in February 2025 and a new support Plan created.
• It acknowledged past concerns about how Miss X’s money was managed. Since the Council became the appointee there have been no other concerns raised.
• 2:1 care was put in place due to the ongoing allegations against Provider 1. Although the overall visits were temporarily reduced there were no additional charges.
• Provider 2 began in June 2025 and it understood the arrangement was working well.
39. Mrs Z remained unhappy and complained to us. She said the CQC had also looked into her concerns and not upheld them, although I have not seen evidence of this.

My findings

40. The evidence I have seen shows the Council reviewed Miss X’s care and support plan in 2024 and twice in 2025. The Council agreed to an increase in care hours in early 2025 and it issued an updated care plan. That increase in hours remains in place with Provider 2. There was no fault.
41. Throughout the scope of this matter Mrs Z raised numerous concerns about Provider 1. The Council considered these through a safeguarding enquiry. As part of the initial enquiries it considered the substance of the concerns, internal records and spoke with Provider 1 and Miss X’s social worker. Records show it also spoke with Miss X and Mrs Z. Ultimately it decided the concerns did not reach the threshold to be dealt with under safeguarding. The Council did not find evidence of harm or a risk of harm to Miss X. There was no fault in the way it reached that decision and in any case at the time of the decision Provider 1 had already given notice to Miss X.
42. Instead, the Council decided Mrs Z’s concerns were more of a complaint about the care and service from Provider 1 and best dealt with under the complaints procedure. As explained above, the matters of theft and alleged financial crimes have been referred to the Police. With regards to Mrs Z’s other complaints these were considered by Provider 1, the Council and the CQC (according to Mrs Z) and not upheld. The Council has explained why it was not possible to take Miss X to every appointment and that the need for two carers to attend reduced the amount of support she received to protect staff due to the ongoing allegations. There is no evidence Miss X came to any harm or that care visits did not take place as required. I find no fault.

Back to top

Decision

I found no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman