Summary: Ms X says the Council’s response to safeguarding concerns she raised about her daughter was inadequate. There was fault by the Council because it did not properly respond to Ms X’s reports. The Council agreed to review the actions of its social workers and provide a financial remedy to Ms X to reflect the uncertainty about the outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X says the Council’s response to safeguarding concerns she raised about the welfare of her daughter was inadequate.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I reviewed the complaint and background information provided by Ms X and the Council. I discussed matters with Ms X by telephone. I sent a draft decision statement to Ms X and the Council and invited the comments of both sides on it.

Back to top

What I found

5. The adult safeguarding procedure provides guidance to enable local authority staff to keep adults safe from abuse or neglect and ensure immediate action is taken where required.
6. It specifies a four-stage process involving concerns; enquiry; safeguarding plan and review; and closing the enquiry.
7. All safeguarding concerns referred to a local authority should be assessed to decide if the criteria for adult safeguarding are met. Keeping the person who raised the concern informed is an essential requirement under the procedures.
8. Where cross boundary and inter-authority adult safeguarding enquiries are concerned, the procedure says risks may be increased by complicated cross-boundary arrangements. The rule is that the local authority for the area where the abuse occurred has the responsibility to carry out duties under Section 42 Care Act 2014, but there should be close liaison with the placing authority.
9. The placing authority continues to hold responsibility for commissioning and funding a placement. Government guidance on section 42 of the Care Act 2014 makes clear the purpose of a safeguarding enquiry is to decide whether the local authority or another organisation should do something to help and protect the adult. If the local authority decides another organisation should make the enquiry then the local authority should be clear about timescales, the need to know the outcomes of the enquiry and what action will follow if this is not done.

Complaint background

10. Ms X’s adult daughter has disabilities which necessitate her living in supported housing. She lives outside Hackney Council’s area.
11. In 2017, Ms X noticed bruising on the back of her daughter’s legs during a visit. She was concerned her daughter was being abused and reported her concerns to her daughter’s social worker. Ms X heard nothing further from the social worker. The Council has no record of the report or any action taken by the social worker.
12. A new social worker was allocated to work with Ms X’s daughter in 2018. Around March/April 2018, Ms X reported the matter of the bruising again to the social worker. The social worker asked the residential home to arrange an appointment with a GP for Ms X’s daughter in April 2018. The Council says the social worker followed up the matter with the host local authority’s safeguarding adults team. I shall refer to that authority as LA(A)
13. Ms X noticed marks on her daughter’s breast in May 2018 and reported this to the social worker. The Council says this was reported to the social worker in July 2018 who in turn raised it with the host local authority. The social worker conducted a review of Ms X’s daughter’s care needs in August 2018. The care and support plan noted the safeguarding concerns and a need for Ms X’s daughter to move to another home.
14. Ms X’s daughter was moved to another placement in September 2018. This was in the area of another local authority. This is LA(B).
15. LA(A) arranged a case conference to discuss the marks on Ms X’s daughter’s breast in December 2018. Ms X was dissatisfied with the conclusion and so the Council arranged a meeting with the safeguarding team of LA(A).
16. A safeguarding team from LA(B) visited Ms X’s daughter’s placement in December 2018 to investigate a concern they received regarding alleged burn marks on her body. In its response to Ms X’s complaint in March 2019, the Council said it would follow up the matter with the allocated social worker as it did not have the necessary information to enable a response to the complaint.
17. Ms X says when her daughter first moved to a temporary placement in September 2018, she reported an allegation that her daughter was hit on a leg with a stick to the social worker but there was no safeguarding enquiry into the matter. The Council says it has no evidence on the allegation in its files. It said the social worker would contact Ms X about the matter. But Ms X says she heard nothing further from the Council

Analysis

18. There was a significant delay between the report of the marks on Ms X’s daughter’s breast and the initiation of a case conference by LA(A). The Council’s complaint response said it was inappropriate for the Council to comment on the delay. However, I find fault by the Council because it did not follow up on the matter with LA(A). The Care Act guidance is clear that there should be close liaison with the investigating authority and so the Council cannot simply say the delay was the fault of another authority.
19. Again, with regard to the allegation of burn marks on Ms X’s daughter’s body the Council was dilatory in ensuring the allegation was investigated in a timely manner. At the time of its complaint response in March 2019, it did not hold information on the allegation and action taken by LA(B) following that authority’s visit to the placement in December 2018. I find the lack of action to be fault.
20. Where we find fault by a local authority, we must go on to consider the injustice to the complainant and a possible remedy for the injustice. Here, it is unlikely the investigating authorities can now determine the source of the marks and bruising on Ms X’s daughter’s body. Indeed, I note there were two police enquiries which concluded with no further action by the police. But given the delay in taking action by the Council, Ms X is faced with an uncertainty about the outcome.
21. I recommend the Council reviews the actions of its social workers surrounding these allegations. It should determine whether adult safeguarding procedures were properly followed by its officers.
22. I also recommend a payment of £200 to be made to Ms X to reflect the uncertainty about the outcome. In response to my draft decision statement, Ms X said she did not want the payment. However, I recommended the sum as part of a remedy package that addresses Ms X’s grievance and so it remains open to her to accept the full remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

23. There was fault by the Council in the matters raised here by Ms X. I closed the complaint because the Council accepted the recommended action to remedy the injustice to Ms X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman