Summary: We will not investigate Ms C’s complaint about the Council’s safeguarding processes. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council having caused a significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. Ms C says she has not had answers to all her concerns and the Council’s response was evasive when she complained about its safeguarding processes. Ms C says staff caring for her brother, Mr B, are not adequately trained in safeguarding procedures and there should be a level 3 trained safeguarding lead on site at all their facilities. Ms C says the Council should acknowledge in writing although its current safeguarding guidelines were followed, the referral was inappropriate and disproportionate. Ms C says the Council’s interventions caused unwarranted and unnecessary intrusion into the lives of Mr B’s family.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council considered Ms C’s complaint about invasive and inappropriate safeguarding processes and her views that all care it commissions from providers should have a trained level 3 safeguarding person on site. The Council confirmed it is the lead authority for safeguarding enquires and staff at Mr B’s care facility are trained in safeguarding. It confirmed staff followed the Council’s safeguarding policy and correctly reported concerns about Mr B’s language and behaviours.
6. The Council confirmed changes had been made to Mr B’s support plan to give clearer guidance and add context to phrases he might use in the future. It explained it reviews and updates care plans following new information which might come to light, or if a person’s needs change, or different behaviours are observed. The Council acknowledged the distress referrals of this nature may cause families, but explained safeguarding referrals are made to safeguard the individual. The Council provided Ms C with a copy of its ‘At a Glance’ Safeguarding flowchart and confirmed safeguarding processes were followed in this case.
7. Ms C is unhappy she has not had all the answers she requested and wants the Council to ensure a level 3 trained member of staff is on site to diffuse situations which she believes do not merit the Council’s own processes being implemented. We could not make this finding or say the Council should have separate procedures in place for care it commissions. The Council has explained the reasons why comments made, and behaviours observed regarding Mr B, warranted consideration under its safeguarding procedures, and although Ms C’s family were distressed at receiving the telephone call about the referral, there is not enough evidence of fault with the Council’s actions having caused a significant enough injustice to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Ms C’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman