Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A’s complaint about the Council’s actions regarding her late father’s, Mr B’s, safeguarding investigation. This is because the Council has apologised for the delay in allocating the case, upheld some of her concerns about recording and explained what actions it has taken to minimise the risk of a similar occurrence. The Ombudsman is satisfied this remedies the fault.

The complaint

1. Ms A says the Council delayed in allocating a social worker to her father’s, Mr B’s, case when a safeguarding alert was raised following his death. In addition Ms A says she was not consulted or invited to the safeguarding meeting and is concerned about the content of the record of the meeting.

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)

3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as the NHS. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I discussed the concerns with Ms A and considered the information and documentation she and the Council provided. I sent Ms A a copy of my draft decision for comment.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B was admitted to hospital on 16 September 2018 following a fall in his care home where he sustained a cut to his head. Ms A says Mr B was discharged from hospital the same day without having a proper examination, and without discharge notes or pain relief. Mr B was readmitted to hospital on 18 September and diagnosed with a fracture to his femur the following day. Sadly, Mr B died 28 September 2018. The hospital referred his case to the Council to investigate under its responsibility as lead safeguarding authority.
6. The Council apologised to Ms A that it did not allocate the case to a Social Worker until February 2019. It said it was notified of Mr B’s death on 2 October 2018 but could not say why the case was not allocated sooner. The Council says it will discuss the allocation process with the management team to establish how to prevent this happening again.
7. The Ombudsman is satisfied an apology and review of processes remedies any injustice caused to Ms A from the delay in allocating the case.
8. Ms A says she should have been consulted about the safeguarding meeting. She says none of the professionals at the meeting knew Mr B and says someone should have been there who knew of his history. Ms A says she should have been offered an alternative date to attend the meeting given it was arranged at short notice.
9. The Council says Ms A was invited but was unable to attend on that date. Ms A disputes this and says she was not invited. The Council acknowledged Ms A’s points about the short notice and that professionals at the meeting did not know Mr B. The Council says this should not have happened, apologised for the fault and said the issues raised will be discussed in team development meetings as lessons learned. The Ombudsman could not add to this even if he investigated is satisfied an apology and review of processes remedies any injustice caused to Ms A.
10. Ms A is concerned the minutes of the meeting do not reflect an accurate account of the background to the concerns. The Council acknowledged although the Mr B’s background was discussed, it was not recorded in the minutes. The Council said it should have been and apologised for the error. It said it has discussed with the chair and minute takers what needs to be recorded and approved in minutes.
11. The Council says Ms A should not have been sent a copy of the draft minutes and sent her a final copy addressing the missing information. It advised Ms A the minutes are a legal document of the outcomes discussed in the meeting and cannot be changed by anyone who was not in attendance. The Ombudsman could not add to this or provide Ms A with a different outcome even if he investigated. If Ms A has information she wants to add she can ask the Council to put a copy of her views to lie on the file.
12. Any significant injustice to Ms A flows from her uncertainty about whether Mr B should have had further treatment and diagnosis when he was first admitted to hospital following a fall, or whether the hospital discharge without notes or pain relief medication exacerbated Mr B’s condition. These are healthcare matters. The Ombudsman cannot investigate healthcare concerns or the actions of the NHS.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has apologised for the delay in allocating the case, upheld some of her concerns about recording and explained what actions it has taken to minimise the risk of a similar occurrence. The Ombudsman is satisfied this remedies the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman