Summary: The Council was at fault for the delay in its safeguarding investigation about Mrs Y. This did not result in a significant injustice as the evidence shows that Mrs Y was well looked after and happy during this delay period. We have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to adequately investigate safeguarding concerns raised about her grandmother, Mrs 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’. 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

4. I have considered Ms X’s complaint and information provided by the Council.
5. Ms X 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

The Law

6. The Care Act 2014 requires that each local authority must make enquiries, or ensure others do so, if it believes an adult is experiencing, or is at risk of abuse or neglect (section 42). The Act contains a seven stage process which starts when someone alerts the council.

What happened

Safeguarding concern and investigation

7. In March 2019, Mrs Y’s daughter, and granddaughter (Ms X) contacted the Council to raise a concern that Ms Y was a risk of abuse/neglect from the family members she lived with. The concerns were that Mrs Y was left on her own for long periods of time and is denied access to other family members. Evidence suggests there is an underlying family dispute.
8. In September 2019, the Council wrote to Ms X with the outcomes of its safeguarding investigation. It apologised for the delay, explained that social workers had visited Ms Y in February 2019, and again in August 2019 and had not identified any concerns. It added that Mrs Y was receiving formal care and support from carers.

Ms X’s complaint

9. Ms X was unhappy with the Council’s outcomes and raised a complaint in October 2019. She complained about the Council’s poor communication and reiterated her concerns about her grandmother. I have seen evidence that between March and September, Ms X chased the Council for updates of the investigation on several occasions.
10. In November, the Council responded to Ms X’s complaint. It addressed the issues Ms X had raised and asked for further information in relation to some of the allegations.
11. Later that month, Ms X requested a review of the Council’s complaint response. The grounds for the review were mainly linked to Ms X’s perceived failures of individual officers. The Council wrote to Ms X asking for additional information to substantiate her complaint.
12. The Council met with Ms X in early January 2020 to discuss the issues she had raised. The evidence shows that at this meeting, the Council apologised that some of its actions were not adequate. At the meeting, the Council said it agreed several actions to rectify the concerns.

Hospital admission and discharge

13. In January 2020, Ms Y was admitted to hospital. In early February, when Mrs Y was deemed fit for discharge, the Council held a Best Interests Meeting considering the previously raised concerns about her accommodation and care.
14. Ms X complained about the venue and attendees of the Best Interests Meeting. The Council explained it had chosen a neutral venue for the meeting and had invited Ms X, who did not attend.
15. Mrs Y was discharged to a respite placement in care home on an interim basis. She remained here until October 2020. This was in part to allow the family to prepare a ground floor micro-environment for Mrs Y at home, and also due to the impact that Covid-19 had on the situation. During her time in the care home, the staff reported that Ms X did not visit although other family members did when restrictions allowed.

Latest update

16. In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed that Mrs Y was now settled back at her in a newly prepared ground floor space. The latest Care and Support Plan Review shows the Council, and the family Mrs Y resides with are happy with the level of support provided. Mrs Y is never left at home alone and her new accommodation is on the same level her daughters in case she needs assistance in the night.

My findings

17. I have focussed my investigation of this complaint on whether the Council’s safeguarding investigation was carried out properly. From the evidence I have seen, including the Council’s complaint response, I consider there was an unnecessary delay. This was from the point where the safeguarding concern was raised, to when the Council concluded its investigation. This was fault.
18. I have considered whether this fault resulted in a significant injustice to Ms X or Mrs Y. The evidence shows that Mrs Y was well-cared for, clean, well-fed and happy when social workers visited her at home. The only concern was her accommodation would be better at ground floor level. I do not consider Ms X to have experienced any significant injustice because of the Council’s delay.
19. The Council’s investigation did not identify any evidence of neglect or abuse. But the concern did result in the Best Interest Meeting’s recommendation that Mrs Y’s accommodation would be better at ground floor level. The Council is satisfied this has improved Mrs Y’s living conditions and proximity to family in the house.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman