Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the way the Council considered a safeguarding investigation. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault of the Council’s actions having caused Mr B a significant injustice to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained the Council’s safeguarding investigation about him was discriminatory. Mr B says the Council should have interviewed and given him the opportunity to defend himself. Mr B says the allegations against him were kept secret from him and not in accordance with policy and best practices. Mr B says when the Council told him the allegations against him were substantiated, he was not given a right of appeal. Mr B says he should be given all the information and data the Council used in the investigation and wants to know the name of the Investigating Officer.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended
3. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council advised Mr B it had enough evidence to substantiate the allegations against him, but in light of further information it received, it was not taking any action.
7. It is the Council’s responsibility regarding its duty to safeguard vulnerable adults to decide what steps to takes to investigate concerns and what, if any, safeguards it needs to put in place. While Mr B says it should have discussed the allegations with him and given him a right to appeal the substantiated decision it made, it does not have a duty to do this. The Council confirmed there are no safeguards in place, is satisfied the situation has changed and ended its investigation. There is no significant injustice to Mr B from the Council’s actions warranting an Ombudsman investigation.
8. Mr B says the Council has not provided him with the information and data he requested regarding its investigation. Mr B can ask the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to consider whether he should have access to the information he wants but has been refused. Information about the ICO can be found on the website below:

Your right of access | ICO

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because the Council’s actions have not caused Mr B a significant enough injustice to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman