Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to raise a safeguarding concern and offered no help and support when she and her sister disclosed domestic abuse from their father. She said this meant the abuse and fear continued for longer than was necessary. The Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained on behalf of her and her sister Miss Y that a social worker visited in June 2020 as part of an investigation into alleged financial abuse involving their father. She says that at the visit she and her sister disclosed they were suffering from domestic abuse from their father and the social worker failed to treat this as a safeguarding concern and offered them no help or support. Miss X says this meant the abuse and fear continued for longer than was necessary. Miss X wants to prevent the same thing happening to anyone else.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I have considered the information provided by Miss X and have spoken to her on the telephone. I have considered the Council’s response to my enquiries.
5. I gave the Council and Miss X the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered any comments I received in reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal background

6. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 is the framework for acting and deciding for people who lack the mental capacity to make particular decisions for themselves. The Act (and the Code of Practice 2007) describes the steps a person should take when dealing with someone who may lack capacity to make decisions for themselves. It describes when to assess a person’s capacity to make a decision, how to do this, and how to make a decision on behalf of somebody who cannot do so themselves.
7. A person must be presumed to have capacity to make a decision unless it is established that he or she lacks capacity. A person should not be treated as unable to make a decision:
• because he or she makes an unwise decision;
• based simply on: their age; their appearance; assumptions about their condition, or any aspect of their behaviour; or
• before all practicable steps to help the person to do so have been taken without success.
8. An assessment of someone’s capacity is specific to the decision to be made at a particular time.
9. A council must make necessary enquiries if it has reason to think a person may be at risk of abuse or neglect and has needs for care and support which mean he or she cannot protect himself or herself. It must also decide whether it, or another person or agency, should take any action to protect the person from abuse or risk. (section 42, Care Act 2014)

What happened

10. The following is a summary of the main events relevant to the complaint and does not refer to every conversation or event that occurred.
11. Miss X and Miss Y are adults who lived with their father Mr Z. Mr Z owned 50% of the property and Miss X and Miss Y the other 50%.
12. In late April 2020 Miss X raised concerns with the Council that her father was being financially abused by someone he knew. She also raised concerns he was acting aggressively and wandering. Miss X advised the GP was investigating his behaviour.
13. A Council officer spoke with Miss X in mid-May 2020 and discussed the concern with Mr Z by telephone. The officer recommended closing the case as Mr Z’s memory issues were being addressed through the GP and there was no evidence to support the alleged financial abuse. Miss X had agreed to contact the Council when Mr Z’s test results were known or if further incidents occurred. However, when the Council was unable to contact Mr Z in late May 2020 it passed the case to its local area team for further support.
14. Also, in May 2020 a third party raised a safeguarding concern with the Council regarding Miss Y suffering coercive behaviour and domestic abuse from her father Mr Z. A Council officer spoke to Miss Y. They noted Miss Y did not want to take her father to court or contact the police and did not want to leave the property. She was receiving support from other services at the time. The Council officer provided Miss Y with information about support available for those experiencing domestic abuse and offered support if Miss Y chose to move out. Miss Y wanted her father contained in a safe place, but the social worker explained a care plan would not necessarily result in him leaving home.
15. In early June a social worker raised a further safeguarding concern regarding Mr Z’s behaviour towards Miss X and Miss Y while investigating the concern raised regarding financial abuse of Mr Z. An officer spoke to Miss Y and Miss X. The Council progressed with a safeguarding enquiry in relation to Mr Z’s behaviour towards Miss Y, and Miss Y agreed to have an allocated worker. An officer spoke with Miss Y and noted the care and support needs she had were already being met by other services.
16. The Council did not progress the safeguarding concern regarding Mr Z’s behaviour towards Miss X further as it considered it did not meet the threshold. It concluded Miss X did not have any care and support needs, she could contact the police if necessary and could keep herself safe by locking Mr Z out of the room. It concluded she had capacity to decide to stay in the house and it had provided advice about support services for those suffering domestic abuse.
17. In early June a social worker spoke to Miss X about the concern she had raised regarding the financial abuse of Mr Z. They agreed with Miss X it was best to ring Mr Z in the evening. The notes record the social worker spoke to Mr Z but did not disclose who made the referral. Miss X spoke to the social worker the next day. She said her father had challenged her following the conversation with the Council. The social worker advised they had not disclosed anything to Mr Z about who made the referral about him being financially abused. The Council decided to investigate the concern further.
18. A social worker spoke to Miss X who agreed officers should visit Mr Z to discuss the safeguarding concern about financial abuse. In mid-June two social workers visited Mr Z. He was out at the time and the officers spoke to Miss X and Miss Y before Mr Z arrived home. They noted Miss X and Miss Y raised concerns Mr Z had been too confrontational and they were scared of him. This was impacting on their emotional wellbeing. The social workers say they advised Miss X and Miss Y to consider moving out of the property and go somewhere safer. They say Miss X and Miss Y advised they were able to call the police if required.
19. The day after the visit the notes record the social worker called Miss X to check Mr Z’s reaction after they left. They noted Miss X stated her father was fine. Miss X wanted the safeguarding investigation into the financial abuse of Mr Z to remain open. The social worker explained after speaking with Mr Z they could not find evidence of financial abuse. If new evidence came to light, they could raise a new concern. They noted Miss X agreed to its decision to end the safeguarding investigation into financial abuse. Miss X disputes agreeing this. The social worker rang again two days later. They noted Miss X said Mr Z had been very quiet and had not been aggressive towards Miss X and Miss Y. The Council later closed the safeguarding investigation into the alleged financial abuse of Mr Z but referred the case for an assessment of Mr Z’s care needs.
20. In late June 2020 the Council allocated a social worker to work with Miss Y as part of the safeguarding enquiry around whether she was at risk of harm from her father’s behaviour. They noted Miss X and Miss Y had been in contact with the police about their concerns about their father’s behaviour and were taking legal action regarding their father. The social worker drew up a safeguarding plan in which Miss Y was to contact the social worker or her other support workers if needed. The social worker would ring and check on the situation and would give advice if requested.
21. In July 2020 two third party agencies raised safeguarding concerns with the Council due to concerns raised by Miss Y about her father’s behaviour. The Council closed these due to the existing ongoing safeguarding action which was addressing the same concerns.
22. The social worker spoke with Miss Y in July 2020 who was low in mood. Miss Y advised Mr Z was diagnosed with unspecified dementia. She was concerned about the potential impact on Mr Z’s behaviour of the legal action she and Miss X were taking. In a further call a later that month Miss Y told the social worker the police were awaiting a capacity assessment of Mr Z before they could make any decision on the case.
23. Miss X contacted the Council in mid-July. She said the safeguarding regarding financial abuse of her father was closed and she was still waiting a formal diagnosis of his mental capacity. She said her father was told she made this safeguarding referral and he challenged her about this. Luckily a neighbour heard and diffused the situation. The Council suggested she consider whether to move out until the situation was resolved.
24. The social worker contacted Miss Y again in August 2020 as per the Council’s safeguarding plan.
25. In late August 2020 following an incident with Mr Z, Miss X called the police. The police attended and took Mr Z to hospital for assessment. A social worker spoke to Miss X who said she was Mr Z’s main carer but his care needs were beyond what she could support. She requested an assessment before Mr Z became medically fit to discharge home. Miss X wanted Mr Z housed elsewhere.
26. A Council officer spoke to Miss X and Miss Y on the telephone a few days later. Miss X reported Mr Z’s mental health had declined. She referred to legal action they had taken and considered it was not safe for Mr Z to return home. The officer advised Mr Z could not be held at the hospital against his will.
27. The social worker telephoned Miss Y in September 2020. Miss Y reported her father’s mental health had deteriorated. She was fearful he would be discharged home and they were finding it difficult to get information from the hospital. The social worker spoke to colleagues who advised that information could not be shared with Miss Y and she would need to go through her solicitors. The social worker passed this information on to Miss Y.
28. Miss X complained to the Council in late September 2020 about the lack of support for her and Miss Y. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint in December 2020. It found when officers visited Mr Z in June 2020 they did not find Miss X and Miss Y were at immediate risk of harm. They found no evidence of financial abuse. It said officers advised Miss X and Miss Y to contact police as necessary and had referred them to relevant support services. Miss X remained dissatisfied with the response.
29. The Council reviewed the complaint and responded to Miss X in February 2021. It noted that an officer had spoken to Miss X ‘at the beginning and that you did not advise against disclosing your details’. It said it would double check in future prior to disclosing information. It added that its primary task regarding Mr Z’s hospital discharge was to consider Mr Z’s needs and what would be in his best interests as a vulnerable person. At the time the alleged family history did not make a material difference as he required support in a community hospital setting and was not being discharged home.
30. Miss X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.
31. In late October and December 2020 the social worker attempted to call Miss Y as part of the safeguarding plan. Miss Y responded by text to advise she did not want to speak as she felt it caused a conflict of interest in relation to her father. She said she did not want to speak to anyone and wanted to be left alone. The social worker responded they were there to support Miss Y. They said they would contact the mental health team due to their concerns about Miss Y.
32. In December 2020 the social worker texted Miss Y to advise they were leaving the Council in February 2021. They would contact her in the New Year but if she did not want contact, they would close the case. Miss Y responded thanking the social worker for talking to her. She said she had enough of social services.
33. The social worker closed the case due to lack of contact and noted Miss Y could contact other services when she had concerns.
34. Mr Z has not returned home.

Findings

35. Miss X and Miss Y do not have consent or any legal authority for their father so I cannot consider any complaint on his behalf or disclose information regarding Mr Z.
36. The Council responded to Miss X and Miss Y’s concerns that their father was being financially abused. It investigated the matter and followed the correct procedure before closing the case.
37. The Council acted appropriately when it received safeguarding concerns about Mr Z’s behaviour towards Miss X and Miss Y and investigated these in line with its procedures. It directed Miss X and Miss Y to other support services and was satisfied they could seek police assistance if required.
38. Miss X did not have care and support needs and so did not meet the threshold for the safeguarding to progress further. The Council offered advice and was satisfied Miss X could contact the police if she felt in danger. It followed the correct procedure. There was no fault in the way the Council reached this decision so we cannot question it.
39. In relation to Miss Y, as she had care and support needs the Council decided it should provide her with additional support. The safeguarding progressed to a plan and the Council allocated a social worker to support Miss Y through regular contact. It followed the correct procedure. There was no fault in the Council’s actions so we cannot question its decision.
40. When the social workers visited Mr Z in June 2020, they did not raise a safeguarding investigation into his behaviour towards Miss X and Miss Y. They were satisfied Miss X and Miss Y could call the police if necessary and both Miss X and Miss Y also had capacity to consider and reject the possibility of moving to a safer place. In any case the Council had already put in place safeguarding support for Miss Y, and Miss X did not meet the statutory safeguarding criteria. The Council followed the correct procedure and was not at fault.
41. This was a very difficult situation. However, the Council could not remove Mr Z from his own house. It responded to the concerns Miss X and Miss Y raised and provided them with appropriate advice. It was limited in the action it could take. As it followed the correct procedure, the law says I cannot criticise the decisions it made.
42. Miss Y and Miss X have pursued legal action against their father and as such the Council is limited on what information it can share with them regarding Mr Z due to the conflict of interest. Mr Z is no longer living at the property and so the risk of harm is removed.

Back to top

Final decision

43. I have completed my investigation. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman