Summary: Mrs X complains about care homes employing staff who have been subject to care proceedings involving their children. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or personal injustice to Mrs X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, is concerned care homes are employing staff whose children are subject to care proceedings. Mrs X is aware of this because she previously worked for the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. We cannot investigate a complaint where the body complained about is not responsible for the issue being raised. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered Mrs X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information she provided. I also gave Mrs X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on her complaint.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mrs X was previously employed by the Council. While looking for a care home for her mother, Mrs X recognised a member of staff (Y) employed by a care home she visited. Mrs X recognised Y because of her own role with the Council. Mrs X was concerned because Y was subject to court proceedings involving their children. Mrs X says she contacted the Council’s safeguarding team and it contacted the care home. Mrs X says Y was removed from her position.
6. Mrs X’s father was a resident of a care home. Mrs X again recognised a member of staff (Z) because of her own role with the Council. Mrs X says her manager would not allow her to release Z’s identity to the safeguarding team.
7. In response to a complaint from Mrs X, the Council said she had not raised any specific issues about the care her father received. It said that staff in care homes are subject to an Enhanced DBS check and this could include “soft information” if the police felt it relevant to the role. But it would not extend to information about family proceedings, which can only be shared with the court’s permission, or in very limited circumstances.
8. It is clear Mrs X feels that care homes might be employing people she does not consider suitable for the role. She is also unhappy with the response from the Council. But the role of the Ombudsman is to look for administrative fault causing personal injustice. Mrs X’s mother did not stay at the home in which Mrs X identified Y. Mrs X has not raised any specific concerns about the care her father received. Also, while the Council has a duty to respond to safeguarding concerns, decisions on appointing care staff will rest with the owners / managers of care homes – not the Council.
9. Based on the evidence available, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, or personal injustice to Mrs X to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or personal injustice to Mrs X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman