Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to safeguarding concerns. This is because further investigation is unlikely to find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council wrongly acted on concerns raised by his relatives, resulting in unnecessary safeguarding involvement with his mother, Mrs Y. He says the Council failed to respect Mrs Y’s wishes, mishandled his complaints and Subject Access Requests, and kept inaccurate records. He says this caused distress and affected his wellbeing and caring responsibilities. He wants the Council to acknowledge its mistakes, apologise, and improve its practices.

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 impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

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. Mr X is unhappy with how the Council responded to and investigated concerns raised about Mrs Y's welfare and care arrangements.
7. The Council explained that it has a duty to consider safeguarding concerns about potentially vulnerable adults. When family members raised concerns about Mrs Y, the Council considered them as part of its statutory safeguarding responsibilities.
8. I understand Mr X disputes those concerns and believes his family members raised them unfairly. But the Council was required to consider the information it received and decide whether any further action was necessary.
9. Mr X's complaint about Subject Access Requests, delays in obtaining records, alleged inaccuracies, redactions and requests to correct records relate to data protection and information rights. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) is the appropriate body to consider these matters, and it is reasonable for Mr X to raise this part of his complaint with the ICO.
10. Much of the remaining complaint concerns disagreements between family members about Mrs Y's care. Neither the Council nor we can determine private family disputes or decide who is right or wrong in disagreements between relatives.
11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault in the Council's actions.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault in the Council's actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman