Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council responded to safeguarding concerns in relation to her late mother, Mrs Y’s care. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with how the Council made its decision and we could not add to its investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s actions in response to concerns about the poor care, the Council’s Care Home, provided to her late mother, Mrs Y. She said the matter caused her distress. She wants the Council to provide her with an appropriate financial remedy for the injustice caused and to implement service improvements to prevent a recurrence of fault.

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.

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

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I considered our ‘Guidance on remedies’.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs Y lived in the Council’s commissioned Care Home. Mrs X said in early 2025, paramedics attended to Mrs Y at the Care Home and raised a safeguarding alert to the Council in relation to concerns about lack of personal care.
8. Around the same time, Mrs X found the Care Home had failed to administer Mrs Y her medication on two consecutive evenings.
9. In response to both incidents, the Council conducted safeguarding enquiries. As part of its enquiries, the Council:
• had discussions with the Care Home;
• reviewed care records;
• reviewed the Care Home’s investigations;
• considered why the incidents had occurred; and
• considered advice Mrs Y’s General Practitioner (GP) and Pharmacist had given to the Care Home.
10. The Council found the Care Home was at fault. It considered the Care Home had taken reasonable action to minimise any further risk of harm to Mrs Y and had made service improvements to prevent a recurrence of fault. As a result, the Council decided to close both safeguarding enquiries.
11. The Care Home had provided a written apology to Mrs X for the injustice caused by its poor care. In response to Mrs X’s complaint, the Council offered her a symbolic remedy of £300.
12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to close both safeguarding enquiries. The Council carried out enquiries appropriately following both concerns and its decision not to make formal enquiries was proportionate and in line with the Care Act 2014.
13. In addition, Mrs Y received an apology for the injustice caused to her. The Council offered her a symbolic payment. Both personal remedies are in line with our Guidance on Remedies. We could not add to the Council’s investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault with how the Council made its decision and we could not add to its investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman