Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about what happened when Mr X asked the Council for urgent assistance with his relative’s dementia crisis. This is because there is no evidence of a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X is a carer. He complains that he asked the Council for help but was left to manage his relative’s dementia crisis alone, placing both him and his relative at risk. Mr X says he was caused significant stress, anxiety and ongoing uncertainty.
2. Mr X also raises concerns about the accuracy of the Council’s records.
3. Mr X would like the records corrected, a review of its procedures, an assessment of his relative’s care needs and a carers assessment for himself plus a remedy and apology.

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, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complains the Council failed to respond to his telephone calls when he had to deal with an urgent safeguarding situation at home during his relative’s dementia crisis.
8. Mr X says the Council failed to provide cover when the allocated social worker was absent. He says the Council incorrectly recorded key facts concerning his role as a carer. He also says the complaint handling was Inadequate including refusing to uphold his complaint process despite acknowledging inaccuracies.
9. The Council has investigated Mr X’s complaint. It accepts fault in its response to his urgent telephone calls. It confirms the process that should have taken place before an officer might have needed to carry out a home visit. It says it will remind all staff of the importance of responding to urgent calls at the next staff team meeting.
10. The Council also says no other action is needed including any safeguarding investigation. It finds the ambulance service/NHS had managed the risk appropriately. It said it has liaised with the home help care provider, and the day centre that his relative attends, and no care concerns had been found. It advises a new officer has been allocated for his relative’s care review and for contact with Mr X.
11. The Council also says it has now corrected its care records to note Mr X as the sole carer. It explained its records showed a conversation with Mr X and a different relative in 2025 which had led the Council to believe a third party was acting as the carer.
12. We will not investigate. The Council accepts it should have called Mr X back and it has also explained, on review, its reasons for the inaccurate reference to a third party as the carer. It has explained the way forward for assessing Mr X’s relative’s care needs. It has explained he can contact the new officer for a carers assessment. I do not consider there is evidence of an outstanding injustice significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. There is insufficient evidence of a significant injustice to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman