Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to safeguarding concerns the complainant raised about his brother. This is because we cannot add anything to the previous investigations into his concerns of change the outcomes. Additionally, the complainant is not a suitable representative to complain on behalf of his brother.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr K, complains that the Council did not act on the safeguarding concerns he raised in respect of his brother, B, leading to B’s death.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We may investigate a complaint on behalf of someone who has died or who cannot authorise someone to act for them. The complaint may be made by:

• their personal representative (if they have one), or
• someone we consider to be suitable.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(2), 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 could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information we received from Mr K and from the Council. I have also sent Mr K a draft decision for his comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr K had a brother, B, who lived with their sister. Mr K was concerned about B’s health, welfare and safety in their sister’s house, and he raised his concerns to the Council. He wanted B to live with him, where he felt B would better cared for.
6. The Council visited B at their sister’s house, and followed up the concerns raised by Mr K. The Council says that assessments showed B had capacity to decide where he wanted to live. It says he told the Council that he was happy with his sister, and wanted to remain there.
7. The Council therefore decided that it was in B’s interests to remain where he was.
8. B died not long after these events, and Mr K felt the care that S provided was responsible for the death, and he blamed the Council for leaving B with S. However, a coroner’s court found that B died of natural causes, and a police investigation yielded nothing to support Mr K’s views.
9. Mr K also asked the West Sussex Safeguarding Adult Board (WSSAB) to carry out a Safeguarding Adults Review. The board refused Mr K’s request however. It said that it considered the information he provided in the context of all the information sourced to support a decision in line with the National Guidance and Local Protocols.
10. The Board concluded that the case did not meet the criteria for a Safeguarding Adults Review because there was no evidence of serious abuse or neglect. Both the Police and the Council found that B had capacity to make his own decisions about where to live. He also declined a Care Act Assessment, as was his right to do.
11. Mr K continues to assert that the decision to allow B to carry on living with S was wrong, but we cannot investigate a complaint on behalf of B. This is because Mr K does not have authority to act on his behalf. There is no indication that while B was alive he shared Mr K’s views or wanted him to act for him or complain about the Council’s actions, and I cannot therefore consider Mr K a suitable representative for B.
12. Mr K has also made a complaint to the LGSCO in his own right, complaining that his safeguarding concerns were not taken seriously. However, the actions described about show that the Council, as well as the Police, the Coroner and the WSSAB all looked into the concerns raised, but found no evidence to support them. Therefore we will not investigate this aspect of the complaint as we could not add to the previous consideration of the issues, or change the outcomes.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because I could not add to the previous investigations into Mr K’s concerns or change the outcomes. Additionally I will not investigate a complaint from him on behalf of his brother as I do not consider him a suitable representative.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman