Cumbria County Council (19 018 595)

Category : Adult care services > Safeguarding

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 08 Jun 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mrs D complained that Council failed to safeguard her mother, Mrs C, from financial abuse. The Council has accepted that it did not progress its safeguarding investigation quickly enough. Mrs D has suffered an injustice as she cannot be satisfied her concerns were taken seriously. The Council will take action to remedy this injustice.

The complaint

  1. Mrs D complains that the Council failed to respond properly to safeguarding concerns she raised about her mother, Mrs C, suffering financial abuse. Mrs D says said the situation harmed her health and she is now being treated for angina. Mrs D would like to see service improvements to prevent recurrences of similar failings. Specifically, she would like to see processes in place to help protect the finances of people with dementia.

Back to top

What I have investigated

  1. I have investigated the Council’s handling of a safeguarding referral in February 2018. This includes looking at the Council’s own investigation of this matter. Mrs D complained to the Council quickly after the Council confirmed it had closed its safeguarding case. The investigation took over a year but this was not due to Mrs D’s actions. As such, while this complaint reached the Ombudsman late there are compelling reasons to set that aside.
  2. I have explained below, at the bottom of this statement, why I have not looked at other events.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
  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. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
  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

  1. I have considered a complaint from Mrs D and I have discussed the matter with her. I have asked the Council to comment on the complaint and considered its response with supporting documents including safeguarding documentation and the Council’s response to Mrs D’s complaint.
  2. Mrs D 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

Legislation and guidance

  1. A council must make necessary enquiries if it has reason to think a person may be at risk of abuse or neglect and has needs for care and support which mean he or she cannot protect himself or herself. It must also decide whether it or another person or agency should take any action to protect the person from abuse or risk. (section 42, Care Act 2014)
  2. The Care and Support Statutory Guidance (the Guidance) notes that financial abuse is the main form of abuse investigated by the Office of the Public Guardian amongst adults at risk. (Paragraph 14.24 of the Guidance)
  3. Where financial abuse may amount to theft or fraud it is a matter for the police to investigate. (Paragraph 14.27 of the Guidance) Where the police lead criminal investigations councils still have a duty to promote the wellbeing of the adult. (Paragraph 14.101 of the Guidance)
  4. At the time of the events, the Council had a safeguarding policy in place (the Policy). The Policy sets out timeframes for dealing with safeguarding concerns. It says the Council should establish the facts and assess whether the adult needs protection within one day of receiving an alert or referral. The Policy also says the Council should have a strategy meeting withing five working days.

What happened

  1. Mrs C had dementia and, around 2014, she began to suffer a decline in her overall mental capacity. She had support from carers.
  2. In February 2018 Mrs D’s son made a safeguarding referral to the Council. Mrs D’s son said Mrs C had had ‘many thousands’ of pounds taken from her accounts over the last few years. He said this happened ‘either by coercive control or lack of knowledge of the acts’. Mrs D’s son noted they had reported the matter to the police but they had advised that it was a civil matter. He said they had begun a legal process but the financial abuse was continuing. Mrs D’s son said Mrs C was often left without food or money.
  3. At the end of March 2018, a solicitor acting on behalf of Mrs D got in touch with the Council. They noted they were in the process of asking the Court of Protection to appoint a Deputy for Mrs C. The solicitor asked if the Council had taken any action in relation to the safeguarding referral the family made in February.
  4. The Council began looking at the situation under a safeguarding enquiry. In early April 2018 a doctor visited Mrs C and found she did not have the mental capacity to make decisions about her finances. Toward the end of April Mrs D’s son emailed copies of financial documents to Mrs C’s Social Worker to illustrate the transactions he and Mrs D had concerns about. The Social Worker spoke to his manager who suggested getting more information and then deciding whether to hold a strategy meeting.
  5. Mrs C sadly died in mid-May 2018. The Council then closed its safeguarding case.
  6. Mrs D and her son complained to the Council in June 2018. The Council completed its investigation of the complaint over a year later, in August 2019.
  7. The Council concluded that it had not acted on the safeguarding referral of February 2018 in a timely manner. In particular, it acknowledged that no discussions took place until March when it should have decided within 24 hours whether the referral needed further investigation. It said there had been a considerable delay and the referral should have led to a decision to proceed to a strategy meeting with the police within five days. The Council acknowledged that it failed to decide whether to progress with safeguarding enquiries until May 2018.
  8. The Council recommended the Social Worker get further safeguarding training. It also recommended an apology to Mrs D for the failure to fulfil its statutory safeguarding duties.
  9. In response to my enquiries, the Council accepted that if it had considered the referral sooner, this would have allowed it to meet with the police and decide how to investigate the concerns. It also confirmed it had not yet written to Mrs D with the recommended apology. The Council explained it has taken the following steps in light of the findings in Mrs D’s complaint:
    • Safeguarding cases are looked at in weekly 1:1 meetings to make sure they are being progressed in the right timeframes.
    • Weekly spreadsheets are shared with managers to reinforce the above and the Council selects random cases to audit.
    • In November last year, the Council intended to implement a new structure for safeguarding which includes a dedicated Adult Safeguarding service.
  10. Following my draft decision, the Council confirmed it sent Mrs D the apology letter in January this year.

Analysis

  1. The failure to respond to the safeguarding referral within the timeframes appears to be fault. However, this is fault that the Council has accepted.
  2. Mrs D has explained that she is seeking service improvements as an outcome to her complaint. When I made my enquiries of the Council, it had not yet written to Mrs D to apologise. While I accept the Council may have made some significant changes to its approach to safeguarding, it is not clear that it has explained these to Mrs D. I accept Mrs D appears to have suffered an injustice as she cannot be satisfied the Council has learned from her complaint, in spite of its acceptance that it did not respond appropriately to her concerns.

Agreed action

  1. Within a month of my final decision, the Council will write to Mrs D to explain the changes it has made to how it approaches safeguarding in the future.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. There is fault in the Council’s failure to investigate Mrs D’s concerns in a timely way. Mrs D cannot therefore be satisfied the Council took her concerns seriously.
  2. The Council has apologised to Mrs D and will now write to her to explain the changes it has made to how it approaches safeguarding.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

  1. I have not looked at the Council’s handling of safeguarding referrals about Mrs C before February 2018. The complaint to the Ombudsman about these matters is late and there is no reason exercise discretion to set this aside.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings