Leicester City Council (19 008 310)

Category : Adult care services > Other

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 28 Feb 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr B complained about the Council passing misleading information about him on to a doctor. We found fault in that the Council did pass on this misleading information.

The complaint

  1. Mr B complains Leicester City Council (the Council) gave misleading information to a doctor relating to a previous incident involving his father, Mr C. This is contrary to recommendations made by the Ombudsmen in a past investigation.
  2. This has caused distress and frustration for Mr B and he would like for the Council to confirm the record has been amended, an apology and compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. We use the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. If there has been fault, the Ombudsman considers whether it has caused injustice or hardship (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1))
  2. If it has, we may suggest a remedy. Recommendations might include asking the organisation to apologise or to pay a financial remedy, for example, for inconvenience or worry caused. We might also recommend the organisation takes action to stop the same mistakes happening again.
  3. When investigating complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, the Ombudsman may make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that during an investigation, we will weigh up the available evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened. 
  4. 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

  1. During the course of this investigation I have considered information provided by Mr B and the Council. I also invited comments from Mr B and the Council on my first draft decision. I also spoke to Dr E and obtained her record of the 3 April conversation. I considered the Mr B and the Council’s comments on my second draft decision before making this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

  1. Mr B previously made a complaint to the Ombudsman about the Council in 2017. This related to a safeguarding enquiry carried out by the Council regarding his father, Mr C. The enquiry was in relation to an incident where Mr B was accused of pushing his father.
  2. The Ombudsman upheld Mr B’s complaint, making the following findings:

‘The case transferred as the Council closed the safeguarding enquiry. In its closure record the Council recorded the allegations made about Mr B were “substantiated”. The closure form explained this term meant “all allegations made have been proved on the balance of probabilities”.

  1. But in any event it was premature for the Council to form the view that Mr B abused Mr C which the substantiated finding implied. This is because it had not considered all the evidence. There had been no proper investigation by the police or the Council to try and find out what happened on 11 April. In particular, no-one spoke to Mr B. So it did not consider whether there was an alternative explanation for Mr C’s fall. That was a fault.
  2. In a record dated 25 May 2017 with Mr C’s GP the Council recorded Mr B had “assaulted” Mr C.
  3. Finally, I am concerned to note the Council has passed on to a third party a statement that Mr B ‘assaulted’ Mr C. This is unacceptable. If the Council needed to mention the allegation it should have made it clear it was an allegation only. But it reported the allegation as fact. I consider that a further fault.’
  4. As we found fault we made recommendations to the Council including:

• Place a statement on Mr C’s safeguarding file that the Ombudsman has found fault with how the Council conducted its enquiry. It will provide a link to this decision statement.

• Write to Mr C’s GP (copying the letter to this office) correcting the advice given on 25 May 2017.

  1. The Council provided evidence to the Ombudsman which satisfied us it carried out this work and had complied with the recommendations.
  2. In April 2019 Mr B received a report that had also been shared with his father’s GP. This report was compiled by Dr E, an Associate Specialist in an Older Peoples’ Mental Health Team. She had recently examined Mr C and was concerned about his welfare. To this end she contacted the Council on 3 April to see what support he could be given.
  3. At the end of the report was a paragraph which stated the allegation Mr B had pushed his father had been investigated and substantiated on the balance of probability. In addition, it said the police investigated and an immediate protection plan was put in place.
  4. Mr B contacted Dr E to find out where she received this information. She wrote back on to him on 12 April and said it was taken from the phone call she made to the Council on 3 April during which the above information was relayed to her.
  5. Mr B complained to the Council about this stating this was in contravention of the Ombudsman’s recommendations and requesting an explanation.
  6. The Council responded by stating it had looked at the telephone record of the conversation. It had also spoken to the member of staff who had the telephone conversation with Dr E on 3 April.
  7. The Council said there was no mention of the previous allegation or safeguarding investigation in the telephone note and the member of staff said this matter did not come up in conversation.
  8. Because of this the Council said it had not passed on this misleading information. It confirmed it had complied with the Ombudsman’s recommendations and there was a note in Mr C’s records that the Ombudsman had found the safeguarding investigation’s conclusions faulty.
  9. Mr B is unhappy with this explanation as he sees no reason for Dr E to be inaccurate about where she got the faulty information from. In addition, the Council has erroneously passed on this faulty information in the past.
  10. Responding to our enquiries the Council said Dr E had told the member of staff during the phone call that Mr C had been refusing treatment for his Alzheimer’s and had debt issues.
  11. The member of staff said she recalled that Dr E did most of the talking and the previous safeguarding investigation never came up. In addition, the member of staff said she personally had no knowledge of the prior investigation. The Council also ran a search on Dr E’s name in the records and found no record of her relating to enquiries about the safeguarding investigation in 2017.
  12. The Council told the Ombudsman it had written to the GP in 2017 correcting the erroneous information about the safeguarding investigation. It could only speculate that the information came to Dr E from another source.
  13. Dr E has told the Ombudsman when she first became concerned for Mr C’s welfare she contacted the safeguarding team in her Trust and this team advised her to contact Adult Social Care at the Trust. She then rang the Council on 3 April and spoke to the worker about her concerns.

Analysis

  1. The Council supplied the Ombudsman with the telephone note from 3 April and associated records. I also asked for a recording of the phone call. The Council said it does record calls but only retains them for 28 days. By the time Mr B made his complaint the audio recording had passed this 28 day limit and so had not been retained. This retention scheme is reasonable in the circumstances given the high volume of calls a local council would receive.
  2. The Council telephone note has no mention of the previous safeguarding investigation or its faulty conclusions. The note of the conversation is very much about the immediate situation regarding Mr B’s debts and Alzheimer’s.
  3. Dr E’s note states the Council worker told her Mr C’s case had been previously open to Adult Social Care. The note also states:

‘the allegations that his son had pushed him in 2017 had been investigated and substantiated on the balance of probability. The Police had been involved and an Immediate Protection Plan had been put in place.’

  1. In light of all of the evidence I have seen, there is sufficient evidence that the Council passed on this faulty information to Dr E during the phone call with the member of staff on 3 April. The reason for this is Dr E quoted the exact wording of the original faulty information from the 2017 investigation. She also is certain this information came from contact with the Council. In addition her letter to Mr B was only a few days after her contact with the Council and so the conversation would be fresh in her mind. In addition, I accept that Dr E has no reason to state the Council passed on the information if indeed it did not. Furthermore the Council has in the past passed this faulty information on to third parties. Therefore, although there is evidence on both sides, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities this misleading information came from the Council, was passed to Dr E when she contacted the Adult Social Care and this was fault on its part.

Back to top

Recommendations

  1. Due to the fault I have outlined and the distress it has caused Mr B, I recommend:

The Council by 31 March 2020:

  • Write to Mr B apologising for the distress caused by the passing of faulty information to a third party
  • Pay Mr B £300 for the distress caused by passing on the faulty information.
  • Provide evidence to the Ombudsman and Mr B that it has made sure it has amended his father’s record to reflect the 2017 safeguarding investigation and its conclusions were faulty.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I uphold this complaint as I have found fault with the Council’s actions in again passing misleading information to a third party.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings