Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council communicating directly with her relative, Mrs Y, despite her request for it not to. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council caused her relative, Mrs Y, unnecessary distress by communicating with her directly, despite Mrs Y requesting the Council to communicate with Mrs X. She also complained the Council did not consider the distress Mrs Y experienced as a safeguarding concern.

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 (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs Y has care and support needs and is known to the Council. Mrs Y has the mental capacity to make decisions about her care and support needs. Mrs X is Mrs Y’s family representative.
6. Mrs Y wrote a letter to the Council and said she wanted Mrs X to act on her behalf. Mrs X complained to the Council because despite the letter, the Council visited Mrs Y unannounced and communicated with her directly. Mrs X said it caused Mrs Y distress and that it was a safeguarding concern.
7. The Council responded to Mrs X. It said:
• it did not disregard Mrs Y’s letter. The information it held about Mrs Y’s care and support needs was inconsistent and so it decided to contact Mrs Y directly to ensure it had accurate and up-to-date information. The Council said it would continue to work with Mrs X, however at times, it would need to contact and speak with Mrs Y directly;
• it recognised the unannounced visit may have caused Mrs Y distress however, Mrs Y consented to the visit. The Council’s records did not evidence Mrs Y was distressed by the visit; and
• any distress Mrs Y may have experienced from the visit did not meet the threshold of a safeguarding investigation.
8. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with the Council.
9. Mrs Y has the mental capacity to make decisions about her care and support and she had consented to the visit. Although she asked Mrs X to act on her behalf, this does not prevent the Council from speaking to Mrs Y directly where it needs to clarify inconsistent information about her care and support needs. This was reasonable for the Council to do and so we could not be critical of the Council.
10. Under section 42 of the Care Act 2014, a safeguarding enquiry is required where there is reasonable cause to suspect that an adult who is vulnerable is experiencing, or is at risk of, abuse or neglect and, as a result of those needs, is unable to protect themselves. The available evidence does not indicate that these circumstances were present. The Council therefore had reasonable grounds to conclude that the section 42 threshold was not met. We recognise Mrs X’s concern about the unannounced visit but this does not in itself, establish fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman