Summary: Mr C complains about the way the Council dealt with a safeguarding concern raised about the care home for which he is the managing director. I have completed my investigation on the basis that there was no fault in the way the Council dealt with the matter.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complains about the way the Council conducted a safeguarding investigation into the care home for which he is the managing director. Mr C says:
• The allegations received by the Council did not warrant a safeguarding investigation.
• A Council officer disclosed the nature of the investigation in front of a member of staff at the care home.
• The Councils decision to refer the matter to the police was disproportionate.
• Communications from the Council during its investigation were poor and meetings were cancelled.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints of injustice caused by maladministration and service failure. I have used the word fault to refer to these. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because a complainant disagrees with it. He must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3))
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr C; and
• considered documents provided by the Council; and
• spoke to Mr C about his complaint.
5. I also sent a draft version of this decision to both parties, and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Abuse is a violation of an individual’s human and civil rights by any other person or persons. Types of abuse include financial abuse, which includes having money stolen, misused or defrauded. (section 42, Care Act 2014)
7. A council must make whatever enquiries it thinks necessary if it has reason to think a person may be at risk of abuse or neglect and has needs for care and support which mean he or she cannot protect himself or herself. It must also decide whether it or another person or agency should take any action to protect the person from abuse or risk. (section 42, Care Act 2014)
8. The Council’s safeguarding policy sets out how it will respond to allegations and concerns about abuse.
9. When concerns about abuse are raised with the Council, it should undertake an initial enquiry to decide how it will respond. If the Council is unable to resolve the concern through these initial enquiries it will proceed to an investigation.
10. Before the investigation starts, the Council should co-ordinate a multi-agency discussion to decide what action should be taken next. When it is possible a criminal offence has taken place, the police will usually be involved in these discussions.
11. The Council should appoint an investigating officer to find out what happened and to collate information from all relevant parties to assess what future actions are needed.
12. The investigation can be closed at any point if the Council feel the criteria for an adult safeguarding enquiry cannot be met. However, other actions may be considered, including referring the matter to the police.

What happened

13. Records show that In June 2018, the Council received a safeguarding report about financial transactions at Mr C’s care home. The allegation suggested that charges were being added to residents’ bills without their knowledge.
14. The Council co-ordinated a discussion with the police, where it was agreed that the safeguarding manager would carry out a visit to the care home to gather information before deciding on the next steps.
15. The safeguarding manager made an unannounced visit to the care home with another Council officer. Records show that both Council officers met with the manager of the care home and discussed the safeguarding concerns.
16. The safeguarding manager concluded that the concerns needed further investigation and referred the matter to the police. The police subsequently agreed to investigate.
17. The police visited the care home and spoke with the manager. It subsequently contacted the Council to inform it that no evidence of any criminal offence could be found, and it would not pursue the matter further.
18. The Council wrote to Mr C, via his solicitor. It explained that the police would not be pursuing the matter, but to close the safeguarding enquiry an officer from the Council’s Quality Assurance team would like to visit to gain an understanding of charges.

Complaint

19. Mr C complained to the Council via his solicitor. He said he was dissatisfied with how the Council had dealt with the safeguarding response.
20. He said that when its officers visited the care home, one of the officers announced the purpose of the visit in-front of a member of staff. Mr C said that this was a breach of confidentiality and damaged the reputation of his business.
21. Mr C also complained that a visit from the Quality Assurance team was scheduled, but the officer failed to attend without notifying him. Mr C also said that the Council had failed to respond to his correspondence adequately.
22. In its response to Mr C’s complaint, the Council said that it had carried out its investigation in accordance with its safeguarding policy. The Council said that both officers who visited the care home denied announcing why they were there.
23. The Council accepted that the Quality Assurance department had failed to attend a scheduled visit without informing Mr C. It apologised for this and said that staff had been reminded to contact individuals if they needed to cancel visits.

Analysis

24. The Care Act states councils must act when they have reason to think someone is at risk of financial abuse. I therefore do not find fault with the Councils decision to conduct a safeguarding investigation. Furthermore, because the allegations related to a criminal offence, I do not find fault with its decision to refer the matter to the police.
25. Having reviewed the Council’s safeguarding records, I am satisfied the Councils investigation was thorough, proportionate and in line with the duties set out in Section 42 of the Care Act 2014. I therefore do not find fault with how it carried out this investigation.
26. Having reviewed a chronology of events, it seems that the Council responded to Mr C’s enquiries during the investigation. The Council also responded to Mr C’s complaints in a timely manner.
27. The Council did acknowledge that a visit was cancelled without Mr C being informed. However, it apologised and implemented service improvements to avoid the same happening in the future. I consider this to be a suitable response.
28. It is not possible to determine whether Council officers announced their visit in front of a member of staff. This is because there is no independent evidence to conclude what happened, and it is therefore one parties word against another’s.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have concluded my investigation with no finding of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman