Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to his safeguarding concern and management of his care and support needs. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigation. We will also not investigate his complaint about its complaints handling because it is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s response to his safeguarding concern and management of his care and support needs. He says this has caused him significant distress, anxiety, and loss of trust. He also complains about the Council’s delay responding to his complaints. He wants the Council to apologise, arrange a fresh care needs assessment, review its staff training, and pay financial redress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X complained the Council closed his safeguarding concern. He said this was wrong because his concern met the relevant criteria under the Care Act 2014.
5. In its complaint response, the Council said Mr X’s concerns included dissatisfaction with his social worker and that it had breached its professional responsibilities. It said this did not constitute a safeguarding matter because it did not indicate he was experiencing, or at risk of, abuse or neglect. It said it decided to instead consider his concerns about his care needs assessment through its complaint procedure.
6. We will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint. It appears the Council considered the relevant statutory criteria and appropriately came to its decision to treat his concerns as a complaint rather than a safeguarding concern. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify investigation.
7. Mr X complained the Council did not complete a lawful Care Act assessment.
8. In its response, the Council said it had completed an assessment and shared a draft version with Mr X and his advocate in May 2025. It said it found Mr X had eligible needs and its social worker started discussing possible support with him. It said Mr X then asked to close his case, so it did.
9. The Council said it had since agreed to arrange a second assessment for Mr X.
10. From Mr X, I understand the Council completed this assessment in December 2025.
11. We will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint. It appears the Council closed his case at his request and later agreed and carried out a second assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault in its actions to justify our involvement.
12. Mr X also raised concerns about his social worker’s handling of his case. This included that they were influenced by the local MP when working on his case and they left a key meeting early.
13. In its response, the Council said it contacted Mr X’s MP at his request. It said its social worker ensured his MP understood their professional boundaries when discussing his case, and that Mr X consented to referrals suggested by his MP. It said its social worker made a professional judgement to leave the key meeting so Mr X could openly raise his concerns about the Council. Overall, it said it was satisfied its social worker acted appropriately.
14. We will not investigate this part of Mr X's complaint. It appears Mr X’s social worker took appropriate steps to maintain professional boundaries in their handling of his case. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
15. Mr X complains the Council did not meet its timescales when responding to his complaints.
16. In its response, the Council accepted fault on this point. It apologised for distress it caused Mr X and responded to his final complaint ahead of its deadline to show commitment to timely complaints handling.
17. We will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint. The Council’s apology to Mr X and prioritisation of his stage two complaint was an appropriate response. It is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigation and it is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman