Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint about the way the Council conducted a safeguarding meeting regarding her late uncle’s, Mr B’s, care. This is because further investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to provide a different outcome to that Mr and Mrs A have already received and could not provide them with the outcome they want. The injustice caused to Mr and Mrs A from the actions of the Council ls not significant enough to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs A’s husband Mr A complained to the Council about the way it arranged and conducted a safeguarding meeting regarding concerns about her deceased uncle’s, Mr B’s care. Mr and Mrs A say:

• They were given the wrong time to attend meeting and meeting were cancelled;
• They were not allowed to see professionals briefing notes;
• The Council removed the social worker from the case but did not arrange a follow-up meeting;
• Did not take any further action against Mr B’s care provider even though there were failings
• Divulged sensitive information to discredit issues raised by relatives.

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 discussed the concerns with Mr A and considered the information he provided. I sent Mrs A a copy of my draft decision for comment.

Back to top

What I found

4. Following Mr B’s death in September 2017, Mr and Mrs A complained about the care he received from his care provider and matters relating to his finances. They remained unhappy with the responses they received and asked the Ombudsman to consider them further. The Ombudsman considered the matters about the care Mr B received and decided their complaints in 2019.
5. Mr and Mrs A remained unhappy and said the Council should have undertaken a safeguarding investigation into their concerns about Mr B’s care. The Council agreed to meet with Mr and Mrs A to conduct a section 42 enquiry.
6. The Council response to Mr A explains it arranged a professionals meeting for 17 September 2018 and invited Mr and Mrs A to attend. It explained the required professionals were unable to attend so the meeting could not go ahead. The Council explained the meeting arranged for 30 November was cancelled on 27 November because information requested from another agency had not been received. The Council apologised for the inconvenience caused to Mr and Mrs A because the meetings had to be cancelled at short notice and explained the reasons for this. The Ombudsman could achieve no more than this even if he investigated.
7. Mr A complained the Social Worker involved in the case provided the care provider with information about him and alleged he was the source of the concerns received. He also raised concerns that the worker misrepresented the Care Quality Commissions (CQC) involvement and lied to him.
8. The Council explained records show the worker advised the home of Mr A’s concerns as part of the investigation as it would not have been possible to make enquiries without doing this, however it disputes it said Mr A raised them. It noted however the care provider had received a complaint Mr A made to the police so were aware of his concerns.
9. The Council says it confirmed with the CQC they had looked into Mr A’s concerns but following initial enquires could not find any reason to take the issues further. The Council said it could not find evidence to support Mr A’s view the worker said the CQC ‘were backing off’. The Council found no evidence to substantiate Mr A’s allegations the worker had disrupted the CQC enquiry or attempted to cause animosity between him and the CQC. It found no evidence the worker had lied to Mr A, but agreed to remove the worker from the enquiry due to Mr A’s loss of confidence.
10. Mr A wants the Ombudsman to investigate this point further. However, it is unlikely he could add to this point or make a finding of the kind Mr A wants. The Ombudsman could not say the worker lied or confirm the allegations Mr A claims. The injustice caused to Mr and Mrs A from the actions taken by the Council is not significant enough to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because further investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to provide a different outcome to that Mr and Mrs A have already received and could not provide them with the outcome they want. The injustice caused to Mr and Mrs A from the actions of the Council ls not significant enough to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman