Summary: Mr X complained a council social worker made false accusations against him which resulted in his employer suspending him. Mr X says the evidence the Council gave his employer was inaccurate and his employer considered the accusations false. Mr X says the Council’s action caused him to lose full pay for 10 days along with ill-health and distress. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained a council social worker, Ms Z, made false accusations against him to his employer about stealing and poor conduct. Mr X says the evidence the Council gave to his employer is inconsistent and inaccurate. Mr X says his employer found the accusations to be false.
2. Mr X says his employer suspended him without full pay for 10 days while his employer investigated.
3. Mr X also says the accusations by the Council resulted in ill health and doubt his career as a carer.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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’. 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. 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)
6. 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

7. I have considered all the information Mr X provided. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
8. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision before I reached my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Safeguarding vulnerable adults

9. The Care Act, Section 42, requires a local authority to make enquiries if it believes an adult, who has care or support needs, is experiencing, or is at risk of experiencing, abuse or neglect. The Council’s enquiry should determine whether any action is needed to prevent or stop the abuse or neglect.
10. Councils play the lead role in co-ordinating work to safeguard adults. Anyone who has concerns for the welfare of a vulnerable adult should raise an alert.
11. The Council’s policy outlines employees have a duty to report any concerns that may put an adult at risk. The policy says an employee must report any concerns and “doing nothing is not an option”. It is for the Council to decide whether or not to complete a Section 42 enquiry.
12. The Council’s policy says a person witnessing abuse or neglect should take urgent steps to report this to the Council. The person should speak with the individual at risk and make a written record of the concerns as part of a safeguarding referral.
13. The Council’s safeguarding policy and procedures set out how the Council will respond to allegations and concerns about abuse.
14. The purpose of the safeguarding process is to:
• Find out the facts about what happened; and
• protect the vulnerable adult from the risk of further harm.
15. When someone raises a concern with the Council, it should undertake an initial enquiry to decide how to respond. This should involve either the Council or another relevant person/agency consulting with the person at risk.
16. If the Council does not resolve the concern through initial enquiries it will need to investigate to decide on the most proportionate response. The Council should make the decision about whether to proceed to a Section 42 enquiry within two working days.
17. If it decides to investigate the Council appoints a Safeguarding Investigating officer to find out what happened and to collate information from all the relevant parties. The Council should appoint a Safeguarding Investigating officer as soon as possible with any exceptions noted for longer timescales.
18. The Safeguarding Investigating officer will contact the individual at risk and prepare a safeguarding investigation report for discussion at a case conference. This is a multi-agency meeting, with all interested parties, to consider the findings of the investigation. The case conference will decide on the findings and whether abuse or neglect has occurred, assess risk, what future actions the Council needs to take and how the Council should monitor this.
19. The Council can close a Section 42 safeguarding enquiry if it considers it does not need to take any further action.
20. It is not for the Ombudsman to reinvestigate the safeguarding referral but to consider whether the Council conducted a suitable investigation in line with its safeguarding procedures.

Situation before October 2020

21. Mr X is a carer employed by a third-party organisation outside the Council. Mr X was the carer for Ms A. Ms A’s social worker at the Council was Ms Z.
22. Mr X says he had problems in caring for Ms A because of her suggestive behaviour towards him. Mr X agreed with his employer to audio record his care visits with Ms A to safeguard himself against Ms A’s behaviour.
23. Ms Z made a complaint to Mr X’s employer in September 2020 about the way in which Mr X spoke to her. Ms Z raised concerns about Mr X not carrying out his job and being unable to meet the service users’ needs.

Events from October 2020

24. Mr X attended a care visit for Ms A on 14 October 2020. Ms Z and a care co-ordinator also attended Ms A’s property at the time of this visit.
25. Both Mr X and the Council agree that Mr X had a disagreement with Ms Z during the care visit on 14 October 2020. Mr X left Ms A’s property to complete a shopping trip for her while Ms Z and the care co-ordinator stayed at the property.
26. Ms Z and the care co-ordinator contacted Mr X’s employer about their concerns over the visit. The care co-ordinator agreed to make a safeguarding referral and subsequently did so.
27. Within the safeguarding referral Ms Z and the care co-ordinator said:
• Mr X arrived at Ms A’s property at the same time as them.
• Ms A was half dressed so Mr X helped her change but started a voice recording on his phone first, leaving the phone on the table.
• They stopped the voice recording.
• Ms Z asked Ms A if Mr X applied moisturising cream to her. Mr X said he did not and told Ms Z in a different room that Ms A would accuse him of touching her inappropriately if he did.
• Mr X disagreed with them over which day to go shopping for Ms A and said Ms A did not have a shopping list ready. Ms Z told Mr X he should support Ms A with this.
• Mr X restarted the voice recording which they disputed as he did this without their consent.
• Mr X went shopping. When Mr X left, Ms A told them that she did not like Mr X and he was always telling her off and would not help apply creams.
• They had concerns over Mr X’s continued care of Ms A and wanted him removed from Ms A’s care.
• Ms Z also raised concerns with Mr X’s employer in September 2020 about Mr X’s conduct.
28. Ms A contacted Ms Z later on 14 October 2020 to complain Mr X only provided her with £12 instead of £17 from the change from the shopping trip. Ms Z passed this on to the safeguarding referral and Mr X’s employer.
29. The Council logged a safeguarding concern on 14 October 2020 and asked Mr X’s employer to make initial enquiries and visit Ms X.
30. Mr X’s employer spoke with Mr X about the incident and put Mr X on different work while it investigated the complaint. Mr X provided his own statement of what happened. Mr X said:
• He attended Ms A’s house at the same time as Ms Z and the care co-ordinator.
• Ms Z said his attitude was not right even though he was simply defending himself.
31. Mr X’s employer met with Ms A on 15 October 2020. Ms A provided a statement to Mr X’s employer. Ms A said:
• Mr X stole £5 from her by taking it out of the change from the shopping trip but did not want police involvement.
• Mr X was rude to her and had a nasty tone. She said he was rude to Ms Z and the care co-ordinator on 14 October 2020.
• Mr X said she could not see her husband and told her he was a bad man.
• Mr X would not help with creams as he would be accused of touching her inappropriately.
32. Mr X’s employer suspended Mr X on 15 October 2020 following the visit with Ms A while it completed an investigation. Mr X’s employer allocated a different carer to Ms A. The Council noted Mr X’s employer had temporarily removed the safeguarding risk to Ms A by suspending Mr X.
33. Ms A’s new carer raised concerns with Mr X’s employer that Ms A was acting inappropriately, and they did not want to work with Ms A. Mr X’s employer stopped care for Ms A.
34. Mr X’s employer completed its investigation. It found:
• No evidence to support the accusations of theft. Ms A signed a document confirming she had received the full change.
• Two days before the event, Ms A had confirmed Mr X was providing suitable care.
• Mr X had received no other complaints from other service users.
• There was a clash of characters between Mr X and other people.
35. Mr X’s employer gave Mr X a formal warning, arranged training for him but removed his suspension to allow him to return to work monitored by another member of staff.
36. The Council allocated a safeguarding investigator on 30 October 2020.
37. Mr X complained to the Council about Ms Z on 17 November 2020. The Council received Mr X’s complaint on 19 November 2020. Mr X said:
• Ms Z made false allegations about him in relation to theft and inappropriate behaviour.
• Ms Z’s allegations resulted in him losing earnings due to suspension as he was only paid average weekly hours rather than the 39 hours he was due to work.
• Ms Z told Mr X to complete jobs which are not part of his role.
• Ms A was very suggestive in her behaviour and his employer agreed he should audio record visits.
• He attended Ms A on 14 October 2020 and Ms Z was also in attendance. Mr X said Ms Z told him it was illegal to audio record visits and complained about her turning off the recording.
• He gave Ms X the full refund from the shopping trip.
• He wanted compensation for loss of earnings, an apology from the social worker and for the social worker to receive training.
38. The Council confirmed it had received Mr X’s complaint on 24 November 2020 and advised it was assessing how to handle this complaint and would provide an update within five working days. The Council provided Mr X with an update on 2 December 2020. The Council said it was still looking into his complaint and would contact him with the next steps as soon as possible.
39. A council complaints officer spoke with the Council’s safeguarding team, Ms Z, the care co-ordinator and Mr X’s employer. The Council confirmed with Mr X it had accepted his complaint onto its complaint procedure on 8 December 2020, apologised for the delay and promised a complaint response by 6 January 2021.
40. The Council safeguarding investigator met with Ms A on 11 December 2020 to discuss the safeguarding concern. Ms A said Mr X accused her of wanting him to touch her inappropriately and gave her change which was £5 too little.
41. The Council safeguarding investigator spoke with Mr X’s employer on 14 December 2020. Ms X’s employer provided the Council with the outcome of its investigation. Mr X’s employer also raised concerns about the conduct of Council staff during contact with them when handling Mr X’s complaint.
42. The Council’s safeguarding investigator concluded Mr X’s employer had taken appropriate action to resolve the safeguarding issue because:
• It suspended Mr X.
• Sent Mr X a letter of warning about his conduct.
• Arranged training for Mr X on his return to work.
• Put Mr X on double-ups on his return to work.
• The Council had arranged a new care agency for Ms A.
43. The Council closed the safeguarding investigation on 16 December 2020.
44. The Council provided its response to Mr X’s complaint on 21 December 2020. The Council said:
• It could not share details of its investigation with Mr X due to confidentiality.
• It had found no evidence of the social worker acting outside her duty of care as a social worker.
• The award of compensation for loss of earnings was not within the scope of the Council’s complaints process.
• Mr X could approach the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (The Ombudsman) for a review of his complaint.
45. Mr X asked for a copy of the Council’s complain procedure and information about escalation of his complaint on 22 December 2020. The Council provided this on 23 December 2020 and directed Mr X to the Ombudsman.
46. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman on 4 January 2021.

Analysis

Safeguarding investigation

47. Mr X complained a council social worker, Ms Z, made false accusations about him to his employer.
48. There is no dispute that Ms Z contacted Mr X’s employer following the visit on 14 October 2020 and this resulted in a safeguarding referral about Mr X’s actions. The dispute centres over whether Ms Z should have made the safeguarding referral and about the accuracy of the content of the accusations.
49. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. My role is to consider the process followed by the Council, including its employees. I must consider whether the Council followed legislation, guidance and its policies and whether there was fault in the way it reached its decision. If the Council followed its process properly, we cannot find fault just because a person disagrees with the decision.
50. The Council’s policy says a council employee has a duty to make a safeguarding referral if they have concerns a person is experiencing, or is at risk of experiencing, abuse or neglect.
51. Following the visit on 14 October 2020 Ms Z has recorded concerns that Mr X presented a risk to Ms A. These concerns were shared by the care co-ordinator and Ms A. Ms A also raised an added concern about Mr X saying he did not provide her with £5 of her change from a shopping trip.
52. The fact that Ms Z had concerns about the visit on 14 October 2020 meant she had to raise a safeguarding referral and contact Mr X’s employer in line with the Council’s policy. I do not find fault with Ms Z, and by extension the Council, in raising the safeguarding referral on 14 October 2020.
53. Both Ms A and the care co-ordinator shared Ms Z’s concerns about Mr X relating to the visit on 14 October 2020. This supports there was merit in Ms Z making a safeguarding referral and supports the validity of the content of the safeguarding referral itself.
54. The Council asked Mr X’s employer to make initial enquiries with Ms A. This is in line with the Council’s policy, and I do not find fault.
55. Mr X’s employer suspended him following their visit with Ms A on 15 October 2020. The shows that Mr X’s employer shared some concerns over Mr X’s actions after speaking with Ms A. This again supports the validity and content of Ms Z’s safeguarding referral.
56. It was Mr X’s employer’s choice to suspend Mr X and not the Council’s. Mr X’s employer felt it had reason enough to suspend Mr X after visiting Ms A. Even if the Council was at fault, it is not the Council’s responsibility to cover a person’s wages when it was not their choice to suspend an employee.
57. Mr X’s employer’s investigation found no evidence to support the accusations of theft and was inconclusive about the appropriateness of Mr X’s actions during the visit on 14 October 2020. However, Mr X’s employer issued Mr X with a formal warning, arranged training and ensured he was monitored on his return to work.
58. It is not for the Ombudsman to question the actions of Mr X’s employer. The fact that Mr X’s employer thought it appropriate to take such action against Mr X substantiates Ms Z’s safeguarding referral.
59. The Council handled the resultant safeguarding referral in line with its policy. It ensured Ms A was not at immediate risk, allocated a safeguarding investigator and carried out an appropriate investigation. The Council decided Ms A was no longer at risk as it had arranged a new care provider for Ms A. It also decided Mr X’s employer took appropriate action to warn and train Mr X and ensure he is monitored on his return to work. I do not find fault with the Council.

Complaint handling

60. Mr X complained to the Council on 17 November 2020. The Council received this complaint on 19 November 2020.
61. The Council’s policy says it will acknowledge a complaint in three working days and then set future timescales for when it will respond.
62. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s complaint within three working days of receipt. This is in line with the Council’s complaint timescales, and I do not find fault.
63. The Council promised a further response within five working days. The Council provided Mr X with an update before formally accepting Mr X’s complaint onto its complaints process on 8 December 2020.
64. The Council has already apologised to Mr X for the delays in managing his complaint and provided its final complaint response to Mr X within the promised timescale. While there were minor delays in the Council handling Mr X’s complaint, the Ombudsman does not consider this caused Mr X a significant injustice and the Council has already apologised.
65. The council investigating officer contacted the safeguarding investigator, Ms Z, the care co-ordinator and Mr X’s employer as part of their investigation. The Council considered all relevant information when reaching its decision and provided an appropriate response to Mr X’s complaint. I do not find fault with the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Final decision

66. I have completed my investigation as there was no fault in the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman