Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s safeguarding investigation into the care provided to her late mother, Mrs C. This is because any further investigation could not provide Mrs B with a different outcome to that she has been given or of the kind she wants.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complains about the poor quality of the Council’s safeguarding investigation into injuries sustained to her late mother, Mrs C in 2018. Mrs B disputes information contained in the safeguarding report, says it does not answer all her queries, took too long to investigate and does not properly consider or record what Mrs C told them had happened. Mrs B says the Council should not have held a meeting without family members present and says the injuries Mrs C sustained in 2018 contributed to her death.

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 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information and documentation Mrs B provided. I sent Mrs B a copy of my draft decision and considered her comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs C sustained injuries in her care home in 2018 and was taken to hospital. Mrs C told Mrs B and hospital staff that she had been dropped by her carers. Hospital staff reported the matter to the Council to consider under its responsibility as Lead Safeguarding Authority.
5. The Council investigated Mrs B’s concerns completing its report in November 2018. It said carers providing care to Mrs C recorded she had fallen and sustained the injuries from a table near to her bed. It found the allegations of neglect to be unsubstantiated.
6. Mrs B was unhappy with the way the investigation was carried out, disputed some of the findings and asked the Council to reinvestigate. The Council responded in November 2019. It explained it had reviewed the way the safeguarding process had been carried out. It acknowledged it had taken longer than it should and confirmed appropriate staff were involved in the undertaking of the investigation. However, it said it on reviewing the report and on the balance of probability it changed the outcome to inconclusive.
7. Mrs B remains unhappy with the outcome of the safeguarding investigation and the way it was carried out and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate.
8. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to answer Mrs B queries nor could he say how Mrs C sustained her injuries. Sadly Mrs C has since died and although Mrs B says there is a causal link between her injuries and her death, the Ombudsman could not make this finding. Mrs B can ask the Council to put a record of her disputed accounts of what happened to lie on file alongside the investigation report so there is a record of the inaccuracies and omissions she is concerned about.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because any further investigation could not provide Mrs B with a different outcome to that she has been given or of the kind she wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman