Summary: Ms C complained the Council failed to properly consider a safeguarding referral and delayed completing its investigation. The Council failed to follow its procedure when considering the safeguarding concern, failed to document its decision and delayed completing a later investigation. That did not affect the Council’s decision but caused Ms C some distress. An apology and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms C, complained the Council:
• failed to properly consider a safeguarding referral; and
• delayed completing its 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because Ms C disagrees with it. He must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended and section 34(3))
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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Ms C's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• considered Miss C’s comments on my draft decision; and
• gave the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Ms C employed a care provider for respite care for her parents in January 2018. During that period Ms C says the carer dealt with her parents inappropriately and had people over to the property for a party which damaged her carpet. On 26 February 2018 Ms C reported those and other concerns about the care provided to her parents. The Council says it referred the case back to the care provider to respond, although its decision to do that is not documented in the evidence I have seen. Following the care provider’s investigation the Council wrote to Ms C on 21 September to tell her it was satisfied the care provider had managed the situation. The Council told Ms C it did not consider there were any safeguarding interventions required.
6. Ms C raised concerns about that decision and provided further documentary evidence in October 2018. A Council officer visited Ms C’s father on 22 February 2019 and agreed to meet with the care provider. Ms C’s father sadly died on 1 March.
7. A Council officer met the care provider on 4 March. During that meeting the care provider agreed the shift was a long shift and the care provider had made changes to ensure shorter shifts with only one night sleep over. The care provider agreed to contact its insurance company and the disclosure and barring service (DBS).
8. The care provider contacted the Council on 4 March to explain the insurance company had said claims had to be submitted within six months. At the Council’s request the care provider agreed to contact the insurance company to explain the situation. The care provider also provided the Council with evidence she had referred the matter to CQC.
9. On 6 March the Council referred the case to CQC, advising of its decision there was reasonable suspicion to suggest the carer neglected Ms C’s parents while providing respite and had altered care provision to suit her own agenda. The Council concluded there were no outstanding risks.

Analysis

10. I have some concerns about how the Council dealt with the initial referral in February 2018. The Council says it referred the case to the care provider for it to complete its enquiries. However, the safeguarding concern documentation for the referral in February 2018 is not fully completed. The Council has not completed the screening section, the outcome section or the decision-making process section. Because the Council has not completed the form fully its decision-making at that stage is not clear. That is fault.
11. The safeguarding procedure gives the Council the option of referring the case back to the care provider to undertake the enquiry. That appears to be the Council’s decision in this case. However, I would have expected the form to record that as the decision and to note the reasons why the Council did not consider it necessary to instigate its own investigation. Nor is there any evidence of the Council’s communications with the care provider or Ms C about what the Council had decided at that stage. Failure to follow the procedure is fault.
12. I do not consider it likely the Council would have reached a different decision had it properly followed the process and completed the form fully though. I say that because I am aware by February 2018 the carer was no longer providing care to Ms C’s parents. So, in that sense, there was no longer a risk. Nevertheless, Ms C had a justifiable expectation the Council would follow the procedures properly and record the reasons for its decision. Given the outcome would not have been any different I recommended the Council apologise to Ms C for the way it handled the February 2018 referral. The Council has agreed to that recommendation.
13. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the referral it received in October 2018. I say that because I note the Council met with Ms C and her father and then met with the care provider to consider the allegations made. Following those interviews the Council concluded there was a reasonable suspicion to suggest the carer had neglected Ms C’s parents when providing respite. The Council was satisfied at that point the care provider had taken appropriate action under its disciplinary procedures and had notified the relevant bodies. The Council therefore decided there was no outstanding risk. That is a decision the Council was entitled to reach and as it reached that decision properly after considering all the evidence I have no grounds to criticise it.
14. There was, however, delay dealing with the October 2018 referral. I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council took any action until January 2019 and then only interviewed Ms C’s father on 22 February 2019. That delay is fault. The delay also meant Ms C’s father sadly died without knowing the outcome of the Council’s investigation given it did not complete it until after his death. Understandably that caused Ms C some distress. I consider an apology an appropriate remedy. The Council should also send a memo to officers dealing with safeguarding referrals to remind them of the need to follow the process set out in the safeguarding procedures and to ensure forms are fully completed and the reason for Council decisions recorded. The Council has agreed to that recommendation.

Back to top

Agreed action

15. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Ms C for the faults identified in this statement; and
• send a memo to officers dealing with safeguarding referrals to remind them of the need to follow the safeguarding procedure and record the reasons for decisions.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I have completed my investigation and have found fault by the Council in part of the complaint which caused Ms C an injustice. I am satisfied the action the Council will take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman