Summary: We will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a safeguarding enquiry. This is because the injustice suffered by Mr Q’s son is not significant enough, nor is it likely we could add to the Council’s own investigation. And it would be reasonable for Mr Q to go to the Information Commissioner or to court if he wants to challenge the accuracy of the Council’s records.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I have called Mr Q, complained on behalf of his son, Mr D, about Cambridgeshire County Council. Mr Q complained about the Council’s handling of a safeguarding enquiry it did after a service user at a day centre made allegations about Mr D’s behaviour. In particular, Mr Q complained that the Council called the Police to interview Mr D, and he was interviewed without legal advice or representation. Mr Q said Mr D had been permanently tainted by the safeguarding enquiry.

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:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council.

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

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr Q provided. I considered Mr Q’s comments on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. The law requires councils to cooperate with relevant partners, such as the Police, when doing safeguarding enquiries.
6. If someone thinks a council holds personal information which is inaccurate, they may take the matter to the Information Commissioner. They may also go to court for an order requiring a council to comply with data protection legislation.

What happened

7. Mr D has a learning disability. He attended a day centre, Centre A.
8. In 2018 a Centre A service user made allegations about Mr D’s behaviour. Centre A’s Manager reported the matter to the Council. It started a safeguarding enquiry and, because of the nature of the allegations, notified the Police.
9. The Police interviewed Mr D. The Centre Manager was with Mr D during the interview. Mr Q did not know about the allegations or the Police interview until later. He said the Council should have ensured Mr D had legal advice or representation, and Mr D did not have the mental capacity to choose the Centre Manager as an appropriate adult to support him. The Police decided not to take further action.
10. The Council completed its safeguarding enquiry. It decided Mr D should have 1:1 supervision when he attended Centre A to limit the likelihood of further incidents which might put him and other service users at risk.
11. Mr D stopped attending Centre A later in 2018.
12. Mr Q complained to the Council and, following the Council’s response, asked to see Mr D’s records. These showed allegations had been made against Mr D at a day centre, Centre B, which he attended before Centre A. Mr Q believes the Council relied on Centre B’s unsubstantiated allegations during its safeguarding enquiry. He complained again to the Council.
13. In its responses to Mr Q’s complaints, the Council

• explained how it had done the safeguarding enquiry and the work it had done with Mr D to make him understand his behaviour
• said Mr D had initally not wanted the Council to tell his family about the allegation
• explained why the Centre Manager had accompanied Mr D when the Police interviewed him
• said Mr D had the mental capacity to make these decisions
• explained how it had reached its decision that Mr D should have 1:1 supervision at Centre A
• apologised for some of the wording in its records and agreed to amend them
• refused to remove or amend all the records Mr Q objected to
• added a note of Mr Q’s objections to Mr D’s records
• explained staffing levels at Centre A and the training staff had received
• apologised for its poorly-handled review of Mr D’s care and support plan
• said Mr D could choose an advocate from his support network or from Council-commissioned advocacy services.

14. Mr Q remained unhappy and complained to us. He said he wanted the Council to ensure Centre A had sufficient staff with the correct skills to supervise service users there. He also wanted assurances about Mr D’s choice of advocate. And he wanted an independent review of Centre B’s decision-making as well as how Mr D's behaviour should be managed.

Assessment

15. We will not investigate this complaint.
16. Mr Q complained about the Council’s decision to call the Police, and that the Police interviewed Mr D without legal advice or representation. I would not criticise the Council for contacting the Police, as the law required it to cooperate with relevant partners. It was the Police’s decision to interview Mr D, not the Council’s. Nevertheless, it was the Council’s decision that Mr D had capacity to decide who should support him during the interview. Mr Q disputes Mr D had the capacity to make that decision, and that the Centre Manager was not a suitable person to support him. However, whether or not that was the case, the Police decided not to take further action. So Mr D did not suffer significant injustice because of the alleged fault.
17. In paragraph 11 I briefly described what the Council did during the safeguarding enquiry and in response to Mr Q’s complaints. There is no need for me to describe everything the Council said and did here. But in my view, the Council’s complaint responses were a thorough and detailed consideration of what it did during and after the safeguarding enquiry and in response to Mr Q’s complaints. So, I think it is unlikely an investigation by us would add to the Council’s own investigation.
18. In addition, the Council has already agreed to many of the outcomes Mr Q is seeking to achieve from his complaint to us. For example, the Council has already explained staffing levels and the training its staff have received, what action it took regarding Mr D’s behaviour, and that he can choose an advocate. So again, an investigation by us is unlikely to add to this.
19. This leaves Mr Q’s concern about Centre B. Mr D’s records include what Mr Q believes to be unsubstantiated allegations made by Centre B. He believes these records resulted in the Council’s decision that Mr D should have 1:1 supervision while attending Centre A. The Council did not agree to amend Mr D’s records in the way Mr Q wanted and explained why it would not do so. If Mr Q believes Mr D’s records are inaccurate, he may take the matter to the Information Commissioner. Alternatively, he may go to court to get the records amended. We cannot require the Council to amend its records. So it would be reasonable for Mr Q to go to the Information Commissioner or go to court.

Back to top

Final decision

20. We will not investigate this complaint for the reasons given in the Assessment.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman