Summary: Miss X complained on behalf of Mr Y about his previous social worker’s alleged conduct during an in-person meeting and how the Council failed to properly investigate the matter. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mr Y. The Council already remedied the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X is Mr Y’s advocate and representative.
2. Miss X complained on Mr Y’s behalf about his previous social worker’s alleged conduct towards him during a face-to-face meeting held in August 2024 and how the Council failed to properly investigate the matter.
3. Miss X said the matter negatively affected Mr Y, he felt unheard and it worsened his mental health condition.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
7. Miss X complained to the Ombudsman in November 2025, so this investigation should start from November 2024. However, due to Mr Y’s ill health at the time which delayed him progressing the complaint, I have exercised discretion to investigate matters from August 2024 when the alleged incident complained about happened.
8. Therefore, I have investigated matters from August 2024 to November 2025.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Miss X 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

Council complaint procedure

11. Councils should have clear procedures to deal with social care complaints. Regulations and guidance say they should investigate and resolve complaints quickly and efficiently. A single stage procedure should be enough. The council should include in its complaint response:

• how it considered the complaint;
• the conclusions reached about the complaint, including any required remedy; and
• whether it is satisfied all necessary action has been or will be taken by the organisations involved; and
• details of the complainant’s right to complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

(Local Authority Social Services and National Health Service Complaints (England) Regulations 2009)

12. Community Advocate – is a trained, independent person or group who helps individuals understand their rights, speak up, and access healthcare or social services.

Key events

2024

13. Mr Y has physical and mental health conditions. The Council scheduled a face-to-face meeting to complete a care needs assessment for Mr Y.
14. In August, the social worker, Mr Y and two of his friends attended the care needs assessment meeting. During the assessment, the records showed Mr Y made some statements about intentions to harm himself. The social worker responded to the statements. The social worker stated that his response was to challenge the statements made by Mr Y. He then decided to reschedule another meeting to complete the assessment.
15. In early September, one of Mr Y’s friends who was present at the care needs assessment meeting sent an email to the social worker with concerns about their statement and conduct towards Mr Y during the assessment. Mr Y’s friend said as a result Mr Y would prefer another social worker to work with him. The social worker did not respond.
16. Mr Y’s advocate escalated the matter to the social worker’s manager and provided a short audio recording of the social worker’s statement. The manager did not respond.
17. In September, the Council held a meeting with the social worker to discuss Mr Y’s concerns about the incident. The social worker explained that his statement and the short audio recording was taken out of context given the meeting lasted for almost an hour. The social worker said the statement he made in response to Mr Y’s threats was to de-escalate the situation. The Council agreed it would request a full recording of the meeting from Mr Y’s advocate to gain a clearer understanding of what happened during the entire meeting.
18. In early October, the Council informed Mr Y’s advocate about its meeting with the social worker. The Council asked the advocate to provide it with the full audio recording of the August meeting to properly investigate the matter. The Council said due to the pending concerns, it would assign another social worker to Mr Y.
19. In December, the Council chased Mr Y’s advocate for an update, and it confirmed a new social worker had been assigned to Mr Y.

2025

20. In March, Mr Y’s advocate left their employment.
21. At the end of March, Mr Y’s friend made a formal complaint to the Council on his behalf. The complaint was about his previous social worker’s conduct during the August 2024 care needs assessment and how the Council had dealt with the matter since it was reported in September 2024.
22. In June, the advocacy company allocated another advocate, Miss X to Mr Y.
23. In its responses to Mr Y’s complaint, the Council said it:

• apologised to Mr Y that he felt dissatisfied with the way his previous social worker spoke to him and for any distress caused.
• expected all its staff to act in a professional manner when they interact with service users, which included taking concerns raised seriously. The Council apologised if that was not the case for Mr Y.
• shared Mr Y’s concerns and feedback with the Council staff and with managers to discuss and take appropriate action.
• was unable to share what actions it took with the social worker and their manager due to Data Protection.

24. Mr Y remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and Miss X on his behalf made a complaint to the Ombudsman.
25. In response to our enquiries, the Council:

• said it tried to resolve Mr Y’s concerns informally, but it did not receive the full audio recording of the August 2024 meeting as requested. The Council acknowledged it could have chased and escalated the matter with the advocacy company as it seemed there was no proper handover between Mr Y’s advocates.
• said Mr Y’s new assigned advocate subsequently made a formal complaint which the Council dealt with and responded to.
• confirmed it shared and discussed Mr Y’s concerns with its staff to try learn from the situation.
• acknowledged that from the short audio recording it received, the choice of words used by Mr Y’s previous social worker was unhelpful. But the Council said the social worker was trained and experienced, and it felt he responded/managed the overall risks appropriately following Mr Y’s references to harming himself during the August 2024 assessment.

Analysis

26. The social worker and their manager’s failure to respond to Mr Y’s concerns which were submitted in September 2024 was fault. This caused distress to Mr Y.
27. I note the Council held a meeting with Mr Y’s previous social worker in September and requested the full audio recording of the August 2024 meeting from his previous advocate in October 2024 to properly investigate the matter. However, I find fault by the Council for its failure to chase Mr Y’s advocate for the requested recording between October 2024 and December 2024. The Council then allowed the matter to continue to drift from January 2025 until a formal complaint was made by Mr Y’s friend in March 2025. This was fault. It caused Mr Y distress and frustration.
28. In its response to the complaint, the Council apologised to Mr Y about how his previous social worker spoke to him during the August 2024 meeting and for any distress caused. In addition, it apologised that Mr Y’s concerns were not taken seriously when initially raised with the social worker and his manager. It explained it shared Mr Y’s case/concerns with its staff to learn from, and it assigned another social worker to Mr Y. These actions are welcome and I find the remedies are adequate and proportionate with our guidance on remedies.

Back to top

Decision

29. I find fault by the Council causing injustice to Mr Y. The Council already remedied the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman