Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s actions in relation to a safeguarding investigation about his company. We do not find the Council to be at fault. It acted properly and in accordance with the relevant law and policy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council conducted a safeguarding investigation into concerns about his care company. In particular, he complains about the following matters:

• Insufficient grounds to start a safeguarding enquiry.
• Failure to follow due process during this enquiry.
• Advice given by the Council to a service user about not paying money owed to him.
• The Council demonstrated bias towards him.
• Poor complaint handling.

2. Mr X says this unfair treatment has caused considerable distress, potential damage to his professional reputation as well as time, trouble and expense dealing with the matter

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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

6. As part of my investigation I have:

• considered the complaint and documents provided by Mr X’s solicitor;
• considered documents provided by the Council;
• considered the relevant law and Council policy; and
• sent my draft decision to both parties and invited comments on it. Comments received have been taken into consideration.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and policy

Safeguarding legislation

7. Section 42 of the Care Act 2014 (the Act) defines an adult at risk as an adult who: has needs for care and support (whether or not the local authority is meeting any of those needs) and;

• is experiencing, or at risk of, abuse or neglect; and
• as a result of those needs is unable to protect themselves from either the risk of, or the experience of abuse or neglect;
• the local authority retains the responsibility for overseeing a safeguarding enquiry and ensuring that any investigation satisfies its duty under section 42 to decide what action (if any) is necessary to help and protect the adult, and to ensure that such action is taken when necessary.

8. The Act sets out a clear legal framework for how local authorities and other parts of the system should protect adults at risk of abuse or neglect. It must:

• lead a multi-agency local adult safeguarding system that seeks to prevent abuse and neglect and stop it quickly when it happens;
• make enquiries, or request others to make them, when it thinks an adult with care and support needs may be at risk of abuse or neglect; and
• determine what action may be needed.

The Council’s Safeguarding Policy

9. The Council’s Safeguarding Adults Team (the Team) operates a triage service. Upon receipt of a concern, the Team makes a decision as to whether the criteria for an investigation under s42 are met. To make this decision the Team will:

• gather background information;
• contact the adult concerned;
• consider whether a s42 enquiry is necessary or whether other actions are more appropriate; and
• provide feedback to the person raising the concern.

10. The procedure allows for a multi-agency meeting to be convened to plan and review a safeguarding enquiry.
11. When the adult safeguarding procedure is concluded, feedback on the outcomes should be sharded with the person/agency that were identified as the possible source of risk, as appropriate.

What happened

12. Mr X runs a private care company (the Company) operating in the Council’s area. Mr X is a social worker. Included within the range of services provided by the Company are companionship, assessments and helping people with care support.
13. In March 2020, the Team received referral about Mr T. He had raised a concern with a social worker about the actions of the Company during a time he may have been incapacitated through illness. He requested advice on not paying the Company’s invoice and wanted action taken to prevent others being affected. A member of the Team later wrote to Mr X’s solicitor about this.
14. The Team was also contacted in relation to concerns had been raised by a service user’s relative about possible financial exploitation by the Company.
15. The NHS had also reported concerns received from district nurses who had come across several patients who received support from the Company.
16. The Council considered this information against the relevant safeguarding criteria (paragraphs 7 and 8 above) and decided it was met and arranged a multi-agency strategy meeting.
17. At this meeting, the Council’s Safeguarding Lead Officer (the Lead Offier) referred to another five cases where concerns had been raised about the conduct of the Company.
18. All the cases were discussed in addition to some more general concerns about the Company.
19. The meeting decided that further enquiries were required to ascertain more information.
20. In May 2020, the Lead Officer invited Mr X to meet with her and a colleague to discuss the concerns raised. Mr X said he would not attend because he had not been told what the concerns were. He expressed distrust of the Council. He said that in his view “there is no safeguarding”. He said the Council was wrong to advise Mr T not to pay his invoice and his company filled in the gaps left by the Council.
21. Mr X’s solicitor wrote to the Council and asked for details about the allegations made against the Mr X and the Company. The Council responded in June 2020 and explained why the criteria for carrying out safeguarding enquiries had been met. The letter also explained the status of these enquiries and that some cases had been closed and some referrals had not met the safeguarding criteria.
22. The next safeguarding strategy meeting was held in May 2020 to review the actions agreed at the last meeting. New concerns had been raised about two other individuals (Mr P and Mrs Q).
23. In July 2020, the final strategy meeting took place. The individual cases were discussed, and all were closed to safeguarding. The Lead Officer advised that any future concerns should be raised as separate safeguarding concerns. Mr X was not formally notified that the safeguarding investigation in relation to Mr T had been closed.

The complaint

24. In June 2020, Mr X’s solicitor lodged a formal complaint on his behalf on the following grounds:

• Information about an individual’s capacity should have been ascertained before making a decision about whether the s42 threshold was met.
• The Council should not have advised Mr T to not pay the Company’s outstanding invoice.
• There was no evidence that the Company was involved with one of the cases (Mr P).
• There was a lack of transparency because Mr X was only properly informed of allegations against him in June 2020.
• The Council was wrong to contact Mrs Q’s relatives making unreasonable and unnecessary statements about the Company.
• The Council should not have questioned the costs charged by the Company to third parties.
• The Council’s actions demonstrated prejudice against Mr X.

25. The Council sent its final complaint response in late August 2020. The Council acknowledged and apologised for this delay because it fell outside own timescale. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint for the following reasons:

• All cases that came to the attention of the Team were reviewed against the statutory criteria and the Council was satisfied met the criteria for safeguarding enquiries to be made.
• The Council’s first priority lay with the adult who may have been at risk. Mr X was invited to comment on the concerns that had been raised in May 2020, but he chose to decline as he was not aware of the specific detail of the concerns raised about him.
• The Council had reason to believe Mr T’s capacity may have fluctuated due to an infection, so the need for further enquiries was justified.
• The Council had carried out enquiries of the Company at an early stage where appropriate (Mrs Q).
• The nature of the concerns meant it was necessary to contact Mrs Q’s family.
• The Council denied any prejudice against Mr X

26. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.
27. Mr X said the Council’s complaint investigation was inadequate and highlighted several examples where the Council ignored concerns raised by him and demonstrated prejudice against him.

Analysis

28. It is not my role to determine whether the allegations made against Mr X had any substance. My role is to determine if, following concerns being raised about several vulnerable service users, the Council acted properly.
29. I have considered the process the Council followed and found no fault in its actions.

Insufficient grounds to start a safeguarding enquiry

30. The Council, acting in its role as Safeguarding Lead Agency, received several separate reports about possible safeguarding matters involving the Company.
31. Mr X says the Council should have discussed any concerns with him first and had this been done, it would not have been necessary to start an investigation.
32. In this case, Mr X and care workers associated with his Company were potential perpetrators of possible abuse. The safeguarding policy allows for some discretion about when and if to involve the alleged perpetrator in the enquiry. To do so in some cases could be harmful to the vulnerable person.
33. There was no obligation on the Council to contact Mr X at the outset. It was for the Council to determine whether there was any substance behind the allegations, not Mr X.
34. Section 42 of the Act says that a council must make enquiries when it thinks an adult with care and support needs may be at risk or abuse or neglect.
35. I find no fault with Council’s decision to make enquiries under section 42. The Council applied the correct test as set out in the law and its own policies. Because the test was met, it then had a duty to make enquiries. It was the Council’s role to weigh up the information it had, apply the correct law and guidance to assess the risk. The Ombudsman cannot question the merit of a decision such as this if there is no fault in the way this was reached as was the case here.

Failure to follow due process during the investigation

36. The Council’s policy does not prescribe precisely how a safeguarding investigation should be carried out. It accepts that an enquiry could range from a conversation with an individual to a much more formal multi-agency arrangement, as was the case here. I have carefully considered the minutes from the three safeguarding strategy meetings held in March, May and July 2020.
37. I am satisfied the Council carried out appropriate and proportionate enquiries. It has provided an explanation for why it did and did not contact certain individuals and how it dealt with the capacity issues raised by Mr X. These were professional judgements made by the officers and the Ombudsman will not interfere with such matters.
38. I have found no evidence that Mr X was informed of the outcome of the safeguarding enquiries when they were concluded in July 2020. He was told a month later. While this should have happened sooner, I do not consider this delay was sufficient to make a finding fault.

Advice given by the Council to Mr T about not paying money owed to Mr X

39. Mr T asked the Council for advice on this issue. He had received a letter from a firm of solicitors asking for payment of fees. The safeguarding officer worker replied on his behalf and asked for payment to waived due to Mr T’s vulnerability. The officer referred to the Covid 19 situation, but not as a reason to cancel the invoice. Instead, she questioned the sensitivity of such a letter being written to an aged, vulnerable individual with capacity issues at the time of making the arrangement with the Company. She also asked for a breakdown of the amount claimed.
40. I do not consider this to be evidence that Mr T was told not to pay the bill. Nor have I found evidence he was. Mr T had expressed his concern at the amount being charged by the Company and the Council officer acted appropriately by asking for a breakdown of charges on his behalf. There was also a legitimate query about his capacity at the time of entering into the agreement. There was no fault here.

The Council demonstrated bias towards Mr X

41. I have found no evidence of bias towards Mr X. He was asked to participate in the enquiry at a point of the investigation that the Council deemed appropriate. It was Mr X’s choice to decline this invitation.
42. I appreciate being the subject of a safeguarding investigation is distressing. However, the Council had a valid basis for its investigation and so acted correctly and in accordance with the law.
43. There is no fault here.

Complaint handling

44. As I have not found the Council at fault in the substantive matters of this complaint, I am not considering its complaint handling. The Council has apologised for the delay in responding to Mr X’s complaint and this is an appropriate remedy for any distress caused to Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

45. There was no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it conducted a safeguarding investigation into the actions of Mr X’s company. On this basis I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman