Summary: Mr and Mrs B complained the Council failed to properly consider safeguarding concerns they raised, engage with them or tell them the outcome of its investigation and then made false allegations about them, failed to explain the advocate’s role, harassed them, relied on uncorroborated evidence and delayed responding to their complaints. There is no fault in how the Council handled the safeguarding investigation, no evidence it relied on wrong information and there is no evidence of harassment. The Council failed to properly explain the advocate’s role and delayed responding to complaints. An apology and memo to officers making referrals for advocates is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. The complainants, whom I shall refer to as Mr and Mrs B, complained the Council:
• failed to properly consider safeguarding concerns they raised, engage with them constructively or tell them the outcome of the investigation;
• failed to properly explain the advocate’s purpose;
• made false allegations about them and failed to tell them when the Council developed concerns about their management of a vulnerable adult’s finances;
• harassed them;
• relied on wrong and uncorroborated evidence when responding to their complaints;
• failed to explain the lack of response to a solicitor’s letter and their own letters; and
• delayed responding to their complaint.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because Mr and Mrs B disagrees with it. He must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), 26A(1), as amended and 34(3))
3. 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

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint, Mr and Mrs B's comments and their documentary evidence;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
5. Mr and Mrs 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

Background

6. Mrs B and three other family members held power of attorney for a vulnerable adult. Under that power of attorney Mrs B was responsible for managing the vulnerable adult’s money. The vulnerable adult had lived in a flat provided to her on a discretionary basis under the terms of a trust for 12 years at the time of the events complained of.
7. In 2018 Mr and Mrs B became aware the vulnerable adult was no longer living in her flat and was instead staying with her new partner in a different flat in the same complex. Mr and Mrs B had concerns about that relationship and believed the vulnerable adult was being financially exploited. Mr and Mrs B raised those concerns with the Council.
8. A Council officer visited the vulnerable adult and returned to the flats to speak to other people about the relationship. Following those discussions the Council decided there were no issues with the relationship which would warrant a safeguarding investigation.
9. A Council officer met with Mrs B in April 2018. The vulnerable adult’s GP attended that meeting. The outcome of the meeting was the relationship would be left to continue and the Council would make a referral for an advocate for the vulnerable adult. Mr and Mrs B understood the advocate’s purpose was to assess the relationship between the vulnerable adult and her new partner.
10. An external agency appointed an advocate. That advocate met with the vulnerable adult and explained her role was to be the vulnerable adult’s voice and to speak up for her. During her discussions with the advocate it became clear the vulnerable adult did not know what funds were available to her. The advocate therefore asked Mrs B, as the power of attorney, for some financial information. Mrs B was concerned about sharing that information with a third party and referred the advocate to her solicitor.
11. Mr and Mrs B’s solicitor wrote to the Council on 31 July 2018, copying it in on the complaint it had made to the agency employing the advocate. Mr and Mrs B also wrote to the Council on 8 and 30 August to raise concerns.
12. Mr and Mrs B chased a response to their letters on 24 September. The Council told Mr and Mrs B it had not received their letters. However, Mr and Mrs B provided the Council with tracking information which showed the Council had received the letters and signed for them. The Council apologised for not responding and told Mr and Mrs B it would investigate the concerns raised.
13. The Council became aware in October 2018 the trustees had decided to sell the flat previously occupied by the vulnerable adult. The Council wrote to Mr and Mrs B’s solicitor in October 2018 to ask it about the circumstances with the sale of the flat. Mr and Mrs B’s solicitor told the Council there was a discretionary trust which had bought the flat and allowed the vulnerable adult to live there rent free on the basis she covered the outgoings of the flat. The solicitor explained because the vulnerable adult was not intending to return to the flat the trustees had decided to sell it.
14. The Council carried out a visit with the advocate at the end of November 2018. The vulnerable adult told the Council during that visit she had not received any money for the previous three or four weeks and would like to have access to the flat. The vulnerable adult explained she could not do that because she did not have the key to access the flat. Mrs B says she had previously had a discussion with the vulnerable adult about the flat keys but the vulnerable adult did not remember that discussion. Mrs B also says she had told the vulnerable adult’s carer that the vulnerable adult only had to ask for whatever she wanted.
15. The Council decided to refer the case to the Office of the Public Guardian due to concerns about the vulnerable adult not having any control over her financial resources or any knowledge about how to access them. The Council told Mr and Mrs B’s solicitor it intended to do that. Since then those with power of attorney for the vulnerable adult, including Mrs B, have surrendered their power of attorney.
16. The Council responded to Mr and Mrs B’s complaint in April 2019.

Legal and administrative background

17. The Care Act 2014 (Section 42) requires that each local authority must make enquiries, or cause others to do so, if it believes an adult is experiencing, or is at risk of, abuse or neglect.
18. The Council’s safeguarding policy says when a safeguarding concern is raised the first consideration is whether there is reasonable cause to suspect an adult is experiencing, or is at risk, of abuse or neglect and as a result of their needs cannot protect themselves.
19. The Council’s policy says a section 42 duty exists from the point at which a concern is received. The policy says it may turn out the duty to make an enquiry is not triggered because the concern does not meet the criteria.
20. The policy says local authorities must make enquiries, or ask others to do so, if they reasonably suspect an adult who meets the statutory criteria is, or is at risk of, being abused or neglected.
21. The policy says if the initial screening suggests the referral does not meet the criteria for a section 42 enquiry it will be passed to a social worker to undertake further information gathering to establish:
• whether the adult is in need of care and support; and
• is at risk of, or experiencing abuse or neglect, and
• is unable to protect themselves because of those care and support needs.

Analysis

22. Mr and Mrs B say the Council failed to properly consider the safeguarding concerns they raised, engage with them or tell them the outcome of its investigation. I set out in paragraphs 18-21 the process the Council follows when receiving a safeguarding referral. As that makes clear, the Council will only begin a formal safeguarding investigation if it suspects an adult is at risk of being abused or neglected. In this case I am satisfied when the Council received the safeguarding concerns from Mr and Mrs B it acted properly by visiting the home to speak to the vulnerable adult. I am also satisfied the Council made further visits and spoke to other people about the relationship between the vulnerable adult and her new partner. The documentary evidence shows nobody had any concerns about the relationship between the vulnerable adult and her new partner. Rather, the documentary evidence shows everyone the Council spoke to believed it a positive relationship for the vulnerable adult. Also, when the Council spoke to the vulnerable adult it is clear she was happy in the relationship. On that basis the Council decided it had no evidence the vulnerable adult was at risk of being abused or neglected. It therefore did not begin a formal safeguarding investigation. As the Council reached that decision properly after considering the evidence it had gathered I have no grounds to criticise it.
23. Mr and Mrs B say though the Council failed to engage with them or tell them the outcome of its investigation. I am satisfied though the Council arranged a meeting with Mrs B in April 2018. During that meeting it was agreed the relationship would be allowed to continue. I consider that should have put Mrs B on notice the Council did not share her concerns, although the notes do not show the Council was clear its investigation had not identified any concerns. I have seen no evidence the Council told Mr and Mrs B that until much later in 2018 after they had complained. I consider it would have been helpful to confirm the Council did not have any concerns with the relationship in writing or by email. However, I do not consider that warrants a finding of fault given the meeting which took place in April 2018.
24. Mr and Mrs B say the Council failed to properly explain the advocate’s purpose and the advocate then acted beyond her remit. The first point to make is although the Council made the referral to an advocacy service the advocate does not work for the Council. So the Ombudsman cannot comment on the actions of the advocate as that falls outside his jurisdiction. The Council has accepted though it gave inadequate information to Mr and Mrs B about the role of the advocate. Indeed, I note the social worker dealing with the case emailed Mr and Mrs B about the advocate on 1 May 2018. In that email the social worker referred to the role of the advocate as to support the vulnerable adult regarding her relationship with her new partner. I consider that email misleading as this is not the advocate’s role. Failure to properly explain the role of the advocate is fault. It seems to me this led Mr and Mrs B to misunderstand the role the advocate would perform. It is possible if Mr and Mrs B had properly understood the role of the advocate was to represent the vulnerable adult and be her voice they would have recognised it was not beyond the remit of the advocate to ask Mr and Mrs B for details of the financial arrangements for the vulnerable adult when this is something the vulnerable adult raised with the advocate.
25. Mr and Mrs B say the Council made false allegations about Mrs B’s actions as power of attorney and failed to tell them when it began investigating concerns about Mrs B’s management of the vulnerable adult’s money. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council developed concerns about how the vulnerable adult’s money was being managed and made available to her after several visits to the vulnerable adult where it became clear she did not know she had any funds available to her or how to access them. I am satisfied the advocate tried to get some of that financial information from Mr and Mrs B. As I said in paragraph 24, it is possible if the Council had properly explained the role of the advocate Mr and Mrs B would have been more willing to share financial information with her. I cannot criticise the Council though for contacting the Office of the Public Guardian though given it had concerns.
26. Nor could I say the Council made false allegations about Mr and Mrs B although I would stress here I am not suggesting Mr and Mrs B did anything wrong. Rather, I am satisfied the Council took the action it did as it had concerns following several discussions with the vulnerable adult and those involved in the vulnerable adult’s life which raised its concerns about her access to her financial resources. I therefore cannot criticise the Council here. Nor could I say the Council had not discussed any concerns about the finances with Mr and Mrs B given the advocate had sought information from Mr and Mrs B about the financial position of the vulnerable adult at an earlier stage. The Council’s legal department had also raised concerns with Mr and Mrs B’s solicitor before contacting the Office of the Public Guardian. I am also satisfied the Council told Mr and Mrs B’s solicitor of its intent to do that before taking that action. So, I do not find the Council at fault here.
27. Mr and Mrs B says the Council harassed them. I have found no evidence to support that conclusion. It is clear Mr and Mrs B’s view of the relationship between the vulnerable adult and her new partner was different to that reached by the Council. I also understand why Mr and Mrs B had concerns about being asked about the financial arrangements for the vulnerable adult. However, the evidence I have seen satisfies me the social worker and advocate discussed with the vulnerable adult her understanding of the financial arrangements in place. Those discussions suggested she did not understand she had money available to her. In those circumstances I cannot criticise the Council for seeking further information from Mrs B as she was the power of attorney for the vulnerable adult and the person with knowledge of her financial resources. I do not consider asking Mrs B those questions harassment.
28. Mr and Mrs B say when responding to their complaint the Council relied on information from the vulnerable adult and her new partner when both have dementia and problems with memory. Mr and Mrs B therefore say the information they gave the Council is unreliable. I will deal with each point Mr and Mrs B raise about the accuracy of the information included in the complaint response.
29. The first concern Mr and Mrs B raise is the Council wrongly said only Mr and Mrs B had concerns about the relationship between the vulnerable adult and her new partner. Mr and Mrs B say that is not accurate because the other three attorneys shared their concerns, as did the warden, the GP, the GP’s receptionist and the vulnerable adult’s chiropodist. I have carefully considered the documentary evidence. I have seen no evidence anyone other than Mr and Mrs B raised concerns with the Council about the relationship between the vulnerable adult and her new partner. While Mrs B says the GP and the GP’s receptionist advised them to make a safeguarding referral it is clear from the Council’s communications with the GP she did not share Mr and Mrs B’s concerns about the relationship. Nor is there any evidence the warden raised concerns about the relationship. I therefore do not consider there is fault in how the Council worded this section of the complaint response.
30. The second concern is about the Council referring in its complaint response to the family stopping contact with the vulnerable adult due to her new relationship. Mr and Mrs B say they did not say that. I am satisfied when referring to that in the complaint response though the Council made clear this was information it had from the vulnerable adult. There is no suggestion in the Council’s letter it claimed to have witnessed such a conversation or received any documentary evidence from Mr and Mrs B confirming this was the case. As the circumstances in which the statement was made is clear in the complaint response and the Council was not claiming it had verified that information I have no grounds to criticise it.
31. Mr and Mrs B say the Council wrongly said they had suggested the vulnerable adult would have to move into a care home when they did not. I have seen nothing in the documentary evidence to suggest the Council alleged Mr and Mrs B had said the vulnerable adult would have to move into a care home. There is some discussion in the documentary records about the implications for the vulnerable adult if her relationship with her new partner broke down. There is also some reference in the documentary records to the vulnerable adult referring repeatedly to comments Mrs B allegedly made about her ending up in the care home where her sister used to live. However, I have found nothing to suggest the Council accused Mr and Mrs B of saying this. I therefore have no grounds to criticise it.
32. Mr and Mrs B say the Council’s complaint response refers to the vulnerable adult wanting to take a holiday. Mr and Mrs B say the vulnerable adult never mentioned a holiday or getting finance for it. It may well be the vulnerable adult never discussed with Mr and Mrs B the fact she wanted to go on holiday but felt she did not have any funds to do so. However, the documentary evidence shows this is a matter the vulnerable adult raised with the advocate during a visit. I am satisfied this is why the advocate asked Mr and Mrs B for details about the vulnerable adult’s finances. I am satisfied the description of events included in the Council’s complaint response reflects the documentary records. I therefore have no grounds to criticise it.
33. Mr and Mrs B say the Council’s complaint response said the family had changed the locks to the vulnerable adult’s property when they had not. I have found no evidence to suggest the Council said in its complaint response the family had changed the locks to the property. Rather, the complaint response records Mr and Mrs B had asked the warden to change the locks and he refused. I am satisfied the information the Council included in the complaint response is based on the documentary records. I therefore cannot criticise it for the information recorded in the complaint response.
34. The Council accepts it delayed acknowledging Mr and Mrs B’s letters of 8 August 2018 and 30 August 2018. I am satisfied the Council has apologised for that delay, which is fault. The Council also accepts it does not have any evidence it responded to a letter from Mr and Mrs B’s solicitor on 31 July 2018. That is also fault, although I note when responding to the overall complaint in April 2019 the Council referred to the three letters Mr and Mrs B say they did not have a response to. In those circumstances I consider the Council’s apology a satisfactory outcome for this part of the complaint.
35. The Council also accepts it delayed responding to the overall complaint. The Council points to issues with staffing for the complaints team, the complexity of the issues raised and the many communications to different departments as an explanation for the delay. Delay responding to the complaint is fault. The Council has apologised for that. I consider that a reasonable outcome for this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Agreed action

36. The Council has already apologised for the faults identified in this statement. I consider that a reasonable outcome as a personal remedy for Mr and Mrs B.
37. Within one month of my decision the Council should send a memo to social workers dealing with vulnerable adults to remind them of the need to explain the advocate’s purpose to family members when the Council makes a referral for advocacy.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the council in part of the complaint which caused Mr and Mrs B an injustice. I am satisfied the action the Council will take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman