Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s response to his report of safeguarding concerns about his father. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not properly investigate when he raised concerns his father, Mr Z was being abused. He felt his concerns were dismissed and the Council accepted too readily his father’s assurances there was no problem, when he was likely influenced by Mr X’s brother, Mr Y.

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.

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

3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr X provided when he complained.
5. I also considered Mr X’s complaints to the Council and its responses.
6. Mr X was given the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr X lived with his father, Mr Z, until September 2018. Until that time, Mr X says, his father had always expressed a wish to stay in his home and did not want to sell it. In September 2018 Mr Z moved out of the home he shared with Mr X and into Mr Y’s home in another council’s area. Mr Z put his house up for sale and
   Mr X and his partner were left homeless.
8. Mr X raised concerns with the Council three weeks later, as he believed these events were out of character for Mr Z and was concerned he had made these decisions under Mr Y’s influence.
9. The Council told Mr X to raise his concerns with the council where Mr Z was now living. It later accepted this was an error and apologised to Mr X as this caused him some distress. The Councils discussed Mr Z and they agreed the Council would make inquiries. The Council has already provided a suitable remedy for any injustice caused to Mr X by this error, by apologising. This did not affect the outcome. We should not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint as this did not cause any significant injustice to Mr X or Mr Z.
10. The Council telephoned Mr Z to find out about his wishes, views and feelings. It decided no further action was necessary. When the Council investigated Mr X’s later complaint, it found its worker had acted proportionately based on the allegations Mr X made, and his father’s wishes and views were upheld. There was nothing to suggest Mr Z could not make a decision about his finances or wellbeing. A person must be assumed to have capacity to make an informed decision, unless it is established that they lack capacity. (Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice, chapter 2, principle 1)
11. The Council told Mr X it could not share the details of its conversation with Mr Z due to data protection laws. Mr X is concerned the Council could be using this to conceal “a multitude of sins”. The Council was correct to say it could not tell Mr X what it discussed with Mr Z, as doing so would breach Mr Z’s confidentiality.
12. Mr X says Mr Z is being abused and the Council is at fault for not taking further action. However, there is no information that leads me to believe we would find the Council at fault if we investigated this complaint. The Council spoke to Mr Z and satisfied itself there was not a need for it to take further action. Mr X disagrees with its decision, but that does not mean the Council was at fault. It was entitled to make that decision and we should not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because we would be unlikely to find the Council at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman