Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council conducted a safeguarding adults investigation after allegations were made that involved him and his wife. He says it took too long and led to the couple losing income unnecessarily. The Council accepts there were faults in the investigation and that it took too long. This caused the couple distress for longer than necessary, for which the Council will pay them £500 as well as the actions it agreed before the complaint reached us. However, it is not possible to say Mr and Mrs X lost income during the investigation. This is because they resigned from the scheme under which they provided accommodation a few weeks after the safeguarding investigation started.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains the Council:
1. Took more than six months to complete a safeguarding investigation following a referral;
2. Failed to share information with him properly about the investigation;
3. Intentionally provided various false information and statements unconnected to the safeguarding investigation;
4. Intentionally made personal slurs towards him and his wife as providers;
5. Acted disproportionately in supporting a resident to move from her accommodation given the level of risk alleged;
6. Failed to establish the resident’s capacity to decide whether to move; and
7. Failed to give him four weeks’ notice of the move and left one week's support costs outstanding.
2. Mr X says the delay in completing the safeguarding investigation caused him and his wife distress over a longer period than it should.
3. He says they lost income as they were unable to fill supported lodgings places and had to make staff members redundant or reduce their hours.
4. He also says the Council’s actions damaged their reputation

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I read Mr X’s complaint and spoke to him on the telephone. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response and the documents it supplied. Many of these documents concerned several vulnerable adults’ personal data, so I have not shared them with Mr X. I considered the Council’s duties under s.42 of the Care Act 2014. I shared a draft of this decision with both parties and invited their views. I considered the responses I received.

Back to top

What I found

Background

8. In December 2017, a person (Mrs P) contacted the Council with concerns about a resident (Ms J) living in supported accommodation owned by Mr X and his wife. Mr X says Mrs P had ulterior motives in making the contact. That is not something I can consider. The Council, which had court deputyship for Ms J, arranged for her to move elsewhere and carried out a safeguarding investigation under s.42 of the Care Act 2014. The Council had no choice but to carry out a safeguarding investigation. Mr X does not dispute this. However, it is the way it did so that forms the subject of his complaint.
9. For each point of complaint, I have dealt with the issue of fault. I have considered the issue of injustice caused by fault after the individual complaints.

Complaint a): Delay

10. The Council accepts it took too long to complete the safeguarding investigation. The documents it supplied show it took almost six months to do this. The relevant dates were early December 2017, when the concern came in, to 30 May 2018. The latter date was that of a meeting the records show Mr X attended. The Council confirmed at this meeting there were no outstanding matters to investigate.
11. The Council provided a copy of a report it arranged into the investigation. This found there were problems in the way it was planned that led to delays. The Council told me that it should have taken about three to four months, not six. There are no statutory timescales for safeguarding adults investigations. I take the Council’s point that while some can be concluded quickly, others need to take much longer. Therefore, I have not based my decision on a notional view of average time, but on the Council’s acceptance that, in this case, it took about two and a half months longer than it should have done to complete the investigation. On that basis, I find the Council at fault.

Complaint b): Failure to share information

12. The Council accepts it was not clear at first with Mr X about the nature of what was alleged, only telling him eight days after it first contacted him. This was fault.

Complaint c): Intentionally providing false information and statements not connected to the investigation

13. The Council is correct that it is standard practice to check background information. The records I have seen show it took statements from other current or previous residents. While Mr X is concerned the Council only spoke to persons who might have negative views, it was not fault to try to work out if there were any patterns. While Mr X says the Council was biased, it is significant that the Council did not substantiate the concerns raised.

Complaint d): Intentionally making personal slurs

14. As stated in the previous paragraph, taking the view of other current or previous residents was not fault. Considering their views would not amount to making personal slurs. And the Council did not substantiate the concerns raised.

Complaint e): Disproportionately moving Ms J

15. The Council accepts it was disproportionate to move Ms J when it started the safeguarding investigation. Although Ms J was clear she wanted to move and had mental capacity to decide, the urgency was not necessary. I find the Council at fault.

Complaint f): Failing to establish Ms J’s capacity

16. Although the Council later found Ms J had capacity to decide if she wanted to move, it moved her without checking this first. The Council accepts this was fault.

Complaint g): Failing to give proper notice and leaving support costs outstanding

17. Councils can end placements without notice if they consider a vulnerable adult is at risk. In such circumstances, they should pay the cost of the notice period in lieu of notice. The Council did this. So, while it was fault to move Ms J immediately and the Council should have given more notice, it acted correctly by covering the notice period.
18. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it was unaware of any unpaid support cost. I did not find any evidence either way in the records that would have led me to a clear view. However, I note the Council is willing to consider any evidence Mr X has. I have passed on to the Council the information Mr X has sent me.

Injustice caused by fault

19. Mr X’s response to the draft decision centred principally on the matter of injustice. He says he and his wife lost income as a result of the Council’s investigation.

Anxiety and distress

20. Being the subject of concern in a safeguarding investigation is bound to cause some anxiety and distress. This is why it should be done as sensitively as possible and without delay. In this case, the poor handling of the safeguarding investigation at the start caused Mr and Mrs X’s unnecessary extra anxiety and distress. The Council moved Ms J when there was no immediate need to do so. It did this before it told Mr and Mrs X what the concerns raised were. For the first eight days, Mr and Mrs X had no idea what had been alleged. But it appeared serious enough that the Council had moved a resident.
21. The lack of a clear plan also meant the investigation went on for about two and a half months longer than necessary. So, while Mr and Mrs X knew what the allegations were for most of this period, they were kept waiting longer than necessary for a decision. Their anxiety in this period would have been lesser than in the first eight days, but it went on longer than it should because of fault by the Council.
22. It is important to note that the investigation did not lead to the Council deciding it needed to place any restrictions on Mr and Mrs X’s activities at any time. This relevant to the point of injustice above, and to the point that follows.

Effect on Mr and Mrs X’s business

23. Mr and Mrs X gave notice to the Council on 11 January 2018 that they would no longer provide accommodation under the Council scheme after 11 February 2018. The letter cited the viability of their business as the reason. Mr X says this was the result of fault by the Council. He also points out he and his wife did not resign from all involvement with the Council, just form the specific scheme.
24. However, even if there had been no fault by the Council, the safeguarding investigation would not have ended by 11 January 2018. And the safeguarding investigation was unavoidable. Moreover, Mr and Mrs X knew three weeks before 11 January 2018 what was alleged. So, they did not decide to resign from the scheme without information they needed that the Council could have provided. And I cannot say that other residents would have acted differently in the period before 11 January 2018.
25. As there was no Council restriction on their activities, it was Mr and Mrs X’s resignation that removed any possibility of further placements under the Council scheme.
26. In response to the draft decision, Mr X says the Council has only referred two respite clients since the safeguarding investigation. I note Mr and Mrs X now accept placements from other authorities and provide accommodation to persons who do not have the same kind of needs. I also note this began before the Council ended its safeguarding investigation. I cannot tell if matters would have been the same but for the fault identified. I cannot therefore say that the delayed investigation has prevented placements.
27. For all these reasons, I am unable to say the faults identified in the Council’s actions had a direct causal link to Mr and Mrs X losing income.

Reputation

28. The Council did not see any reason to impose any restrictions on Mr and Mrs X’s activities during the investigation or afterwards. The safeguarding investigation was mandatory. While the Council managed it poorly, I cannot say the fault found created any additional effect on Mr and Mrs X’s reputation.

Agreed action

29. The Council has already apologised for the faults identified in its own review of the investigation. It has also picked out several changes it needed to make to avoid the same errors in future. I welcome this.
30. The Council has also paid Mr and Mrs X four weeks fees in lieu of notice, and now confirmed it will consider any evidence of a week’s missed support payment. This is also welcome.
31. However, the anxiety and distress caused to Mr and Mrs X requires, in my view, further remedy beyond an apology. The Council will therefore, within one month of the date of this decision, pay Mr X £500. This comprises £250 for the nine days of significant anxiety and distress when the couple did not know what had been alleged. The remaining £250 is for the longer period of two and a half months of less serious distress and anxiety. This was when they knew what was being investigated, but they were waiting for the overdue decision to end the investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have upheld the complaint and closed the case as the Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy for the injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman