Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A’s complaint about the Council’s safeguarding investigation into the care her late father, Mr B, received from his care provider. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council and further investigation by the Ombudsman could not make a finding of the kind Ms A wants. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A’s complaint about the way the Council handled her complaints. This is because where he is not investigating the substantive matter he will not usually investigate how a Council has responded to a complaint about it. That it the case here.

The complaint

1. Ms A says her late father, Mr B was neglected by his care provider when she observed carers using unsafe moving and handling techniques which resulted in him suffering bruising. Ms A says carers said the bruising was caused by Mr B banging his arm against the wall, which in her view, he could not have done because he could not reach over the cot-sides of his bed. Ms A says she is unclear whether the Council properly considered her concerns under its responsibility for safeguarding vulnerable adults because it failed to get back to her when she first contacted it to tell it of her concerns and failed to update her with any progress on the safeguarding matter or include her in the investigation.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants..

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information and documentation Ms A and the Council provided. I discussed the concerns with Ms A and sent her a copy of my draft decision for comment. I discussed Ms A’s responses to my draft decision with her before issuing a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms A complained to Mr B’s care provider about the care he received prior to him moving to a different home and is unhappy with the response she has received from it. This complaint is currently being considered by the Ombudsman as a separate matter and I will not comment on this further.
5. Ms A contacted the Council in December 2018 concerned her father had suffered bruising from the poor moving and handling techniques she had witnessed.
6. Ms A telephoned the Council in February 2019 concerned she had not received a response and explained her concerns and what she had observed. Ms A spoke with the Occupational Therapist (OT) who visited Mr B at the home in January, prior to him moving to a new home. The OT explained in her professional opinion the bruising did not appear to be as a result of poor moving and handling techniques.
7. The Council reviewed Ms A’s concerns. It acknowledged Ms A said she had observed carers being rough with Mr B and drag lifted him over the weekend of 29 and 30 December. The GP visited Mr B on 30 December and discussed his heart condition and management of that condition.
8. Ms A took photographs of the bruising on Mr B’s arm on 31 December.
9. A different GP visited Mr B on 2 January. The doctor said he could not say for certain the bruising was not caused by poor moving and handling but reported in his professional opinion Mr B was suffering from senile purpura and given his age, thinness of the skin and use of aspirin, he is likely to bruise more easily.
10. The Council wrote to Ms A in May explaining it did not substantiate her allegations that Mr B had been neglected. It explained it did not negate Ms A’s witness account but could not ignore the GP and OT’s professional opinions. It found on the balance of probabilities Mr B had not been abused.
11. Ms A remained unhappy with this finding and has asked the Ombudsman to consider it further.
12. The Council has investigated Ms A’s concerns. While it has not dismissed Ms A’s witness account of the carers drag lifting Mr B, professional opinions have not substantiated the allegation of abuse. The Ombudsman could not say how the bruising occurred and cannot challenge the merits of professionals opinions. I understand Ms A disagrees with the findings, however, I have not seen any evidence that the Council has not considered her concerns properly under its responsibility for safeguarding adults and taken appropriate measures to investigate them.
13. Ms A is unhappy with the way the Council considered her complaints, its failure to get back to her following her initial complaint in December and failure to keep her informed about the safeguarding matters. Ms A contacted the Council in December and followed this up with a telephone call in February 2018. Records show notification of the outcome of the OT’s assessment was sent to a team Manager to be reviewed on 28 February 2019 however, it was noted Mr B passed away on 3 March 2019 the Council decided not to make direct contact with Ms B but wrote to her advising her to contact the Council if she wished to discuss further.
14. Records of the call note the Council received a call from Ms A on 19 March and returned her call the following day. It states Ms A was not happy with the delay in contacting her and says it apologised for the delay. Ms A said she should have been involved in the investigation of the concerns and was advised this was an oversight. The Team Manager said she would speak to the worker involved. However, it did not alter the outcome that on the balance of probabilities, there was not sufficient evidence to support Ms A’s view that her father had been physically abused by a carer.
15. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A’s complaint about the way the Council has considered her complaints. Where the substantive matters do not themselves warrant investigation, the Ombudsman will not normally consider how the Council has responded to a complaint about them. That is the case here.

Back to top

Final decision

16. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council and further investigation by the Ombudsman could not make a finding of the kind Ms A wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman