Summary: There was a five week delay by the Council before a safeguarding complaint was forwarded to the correct Council. This did not affect the outcome of the safeguarding investigation, as this took a further 6 months and found no evidence of abuse or neglect. An apology and review of procedures to ensure this does not happen again remedies the injustice caused by the delay and lack of explanation at a distressing time.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr B, complains there was delay by the Council in forwarding a safeguarding complaint to the correct Council which caused him distress and frustration.
2. Mr B also complains the Council’s complaints process did not provide a satisfactory response to his complaint, so he complained to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
4. 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

5. I read the papers put in by Mr B and discussed the complaint with him.
6. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
7. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Mr B complains for his late mother, Mrs C.
9. While Mrs C was in hospital, the hospital made a safeguarding referral. The hospital sent this to York Council on 7 December 2017. Mrs C died on 15 December 2017.
10. The safeguarding team at York Council decided the matter should be considered by the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) safeguarding lead nurse due to the medical nature of the allegations. The Council says it emailed the referral to the CCG on 8 December 2017. The Council has sent me a copy of the letter but it is undated.
11. The correct Council did not receive the safeguarding referral till 16 January 2018.
12. The referral letter sent to me is undated and I asked the Council to provide me with dated evidence to show what has happened between those two dates. The Council has not replied and so, with no evidence to the contrary, I find that there was delay of five weeks in passing the safeguarding referral to the Council. This was fault.
13. I now have to decide what injustice the delay caused to Mr B and his late mother.
14. When Mr B complained to us he said wanted an explanation of why the delay occurred and details of the Council’s policy to see what should have happened. He was also concerned the Council had just ignored his complaint.
15. In August 2018 the conclusion of the safeguarding investigation was that there was no evidence of abuse or neglect, or that the care provided to Mrs C was not reasonable. However, there had been some poor practice (mainly about record keeping) and the investigation made suggestions for improvements.
16. Given the conclusion of the safeguarding investigation took over six months, I cannot say that a delay of five weeks affected the outcome or significantly increased the time Mr B had to wait. Mrs C died shortly after the referral so the delay did not affect her care.
17. I do consider that Mr B is due an apology for the increased distress caused to him by the delay and by lack of explanation why it occurred. This distress has been made worse by the lack of a simple prompt apology at the time the delay occurred and an explanation of what happened.

Agreed action

18. That the Council apologises to Mr B for the delay in passing on the safeguarding referral within two months of the date of the decision.
19. That the Council reviews its procedures within two months of the date of the decision to ensure that safeguarding referrals are checked to ensure they are in the correct Council area and if not, passed on without delay.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I have completed my investigation of the complaint. This complaint is upheld as there was delay by the Council which amounted to fault. An apology and review of procedures remedies the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman