Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take any action following a safeguarding referral which left him at risk. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint further. This is because the incident happened too long ago, issues regarding data handling are better addressed by the Information Commissioner’s Office and there is no evidence this caused a significant injustice to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to take any action following a safeguarding referral which left him at risk. Mr X considers the referral was lost and/or mishandled.

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:

• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. The information Commissioner deals with complaints about data protection and data handling

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information provided by Mr X on the telephone and in writing.
5. I have considered the Council’s responses to Mr X’s complaints.
6. I gave Mr X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered their comments in reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr X made a safeguarding referral to the Council in September 2018. Mr X said he had Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), dyslexia, depression and anxiety. He raised issues regarding the behaviour of his ex-partner who had moved out of the area with their child and who he said was emotionally abusive and financially exploiting him. The Council assessed the referral and decided it was not a matter for safeguarding. It referred Mr X’s concerns about his child’s welfare to its children’s integrated response service who did not progress it further. It referred Mr X’s concerns to the NHS psychological therapies service, from whom he was receiving support.
8. In October 2018, Mr X agreed the NHS psychological service could complete a safeguarding referral. The completed referral form refers to emotional and financial abuse. We cannot investigate the actions of the NHS.
9. In June 2019 Mr X complained to the Council about access and distribution of his private records by two Council staff with the NHS Trust. The Council responded that his concerns would not be dealt with as a complaint as they related to data breaches. It advised him to contact its data protection team.
10. During September 2019 Mr X made information requests of the Council. In October 2019 Mr X queried whether the safeguarding referral raised by the NHS psychological service reached the Council. The Council told Mr X it received a referral, but it had closed the case as not meeting the safeguarding adult duty under the Care Act.
11. In October 2019 Mr X complained to the Council about inconsistencies in the responses he received and that an officer had shared information with the NHS Trust about the safeguarding referral. The Council referred Mr X’s concerns to its safeguarding team who responded that it had not processed the referral as Mr X was not a vulnerable adult and did not have care and support needs as defined by the Care Act 2014.
12. In late 2019 Mr X complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) about the way the Council processed his personal data and shared information with the NHS. The ICO considered the Council had an appropriate lawful basis to share his personal data with the NHS in the way it did.
13. Mr X continued to raise concerns with the Council about the way his data was handled. In March 2020 Mr X complained to the Council about the outcome and management of his safeguarding referral. The Council considered the complaint was out of time as the complaint related to incidents which happened in 2018.

Findings

14. Mr X has raised concerns over the outcome of safeguarding referrals made in late 2018. The Ombudsman does not normally investigate late complaints, that is, where complainants take over 12 months to complain to us after they become aware of something a council has or has not done. In this case Mr X made a self-referral to safeguarding in September 2018 and was also aware that the NHS psychological therapies service made a referral in October 2018. It should have been clear to him, over the following 12 months, that the case was not being progressed. If he had concerns about a lack of subsequent action by the Council, he had the opportunity to complain to the Council at that time and then, if necessary, to us. He did not come to us until much later in 2020. A late complaint is much harder to investigate and if too much time has passed, we cannot make a suitable recommendation as events have moved on. Investigating these matters now would be unlikely to achieve any meaningful remedy, given the time that has passed.
15. In any case, I could not say, even on the balance of probabilities what, if any, injustice was caused to Mr X by any fault identified. Mr X’s claimed injustice was that he was left at risk by the Council’s actions. Any risk was largely a consequence of the breakdown in his relationship with his ex-partner and the impact of this. These are not the consequence of the alleged fault. Issues around access to his child or the financial impact of this are not matters for the Council but are private matters for which Mr X may wish to seek legal advice.
16. Mr X has also raised issues about the way his data was handled by the Council. Issues regarding data handling are best dealt with by the ICO. The ICO has already considered some of Mr X’s concerns and has responded to these. If Mr X considers further breaches have occurred, it is open to him to raise these with the ICO.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have discontinued my investigation. The ICO is better placed to consider data handling issues, the complaint is out of time and any injustice to Mr X is speculative.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman