Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not intervene when he reported safeguarding concerns to it, relating to his mother, in 2015. We will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely we could now carry out a meaningful investigation or provide a meaningful outcome for Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not intervene when he reported safeguarding concerns to it, relating to his mother, in 2015. His mother passed away in June 2015. Mr X says this caused his detention for mental health treatment and travel costs amounting to €150,000. He also says he will be caused a financial loss for legal proceedings he intends to take.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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 would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• 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

4. I considered the information Mr X provided when he complained to us.
5. I considered Mr X’s comments on a previous decision statement, which I withdrew.
6. I considered Mr X’s comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr X says the Council did not intervene when he reported safeguarding concerns to it in 2015. The concerns related to his mother.
8. We cannot investigate complaints brought to us more than 12 months after events, unless we decide there are good reasons. Mr X was detained for mental health treatment for a significant proportion of the period since 2015. I have considered this and I am satisfied with Mr X’s explanation of why he could not complain to us sooner.
9. When considering whether to exercise our discretion to investigate historical complaints, however, we must also consider whether so much time has passed since events that any investigation is likely to be impeded by the passing of time. The longer that has passed, the harder it becomes to establish material facts with reasonable confidence. Even if some evidence is available, it may not be reliable or provide a full picture.
10. I am not confident in this case we would have a realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair and meaningful decision, due to the time that has passed. We cannot say now what happened in 2015 and we cannot provide the answers Mr X seeks about his mother’s care. I cannot say what the outcome would have been if the Council had carried out safeguarding enquiries. Therefore, despite Mr X providing a good reason for not having complained sooner, we should not use our discretion to investigate this historical complaint.
11. In any event, we would probably decide not to investigate the complaint for other reasons. The Council told Mr X in 2015 the issues he raised were historic and were a matter for the relevant NHS trusts. The aim of safeguarding enquiries by a council are to decide whether action is needed to prevent or stop abuse or neglect, when someone is currently experiencing, or is at risk of, abuse or neglect. Many of Mr X’s concerns were already historic at that time, and Mr X has provided evidence the Council considered those which were current at the time, but decided there was no clear safeguarding issue to investigate. It is therefore unlikely we would decide the Council was at fault if we were to investigate.
12. The fault Mr X claims also does not relate to the injustice he says he experienced. He says to remedy the complaint, he would like the Council to pay the cost of his medical bills and his travel costs. We would be unable to achieve the outcomes Mr X seeks if we were to investigate, because they are not relevant to the complaint about safeguarding his mother. Mr X also wants us to conclude the Council’s actions caused his mother’s death, which is not something we could say.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely our involvement would lead to a meaningful outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman