Summary: We do not propose to investigate this complaint about the Council’s interactions with the complainant, including the initiation of a safeguarding enquiry. This is because we are unlikely to be able to evidence fault in the actions of the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Miss D, says that the Council:
• Harassed her through over frequent communications
• Placed too much reliance on information from the Care Provider involved;
• Breached confidentiality in an interaction with the Care Provider;
• Unfairly and unnecessarily started a safeguarding investigation about her care for her elderly mother; and
• Has not investigated her complaint properly and provided responses that are incorrect.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about a personnel issue. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 4, as amended)
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’. 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
• 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

5. I considered the information provided by Miss D, and I sent her a draft decision for her comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Miss D cared for her elderly mother, M, at her home. Despite doing her best to look after M, she says that she was harassed over a considerable time by M’s social worker. She also complains about the relationship between the Care Provider providing additional care for M, and M’s social worker. She feels the social worker overly empowered the Care Provider.
7. Miss D made detailed complaints listing unhappy interactions with the carers and the social workers. These included a complaint about the Council’s initiation of a safeguarding investigation.
8. The Council’s response does not address each of the incidents complained of, but says that given the concerns raised, it was appropriate to start a safeguarding investigation. It has a duty to do so where the concerns meet the triggers in the national and local guidance, and is a professional decision. The Council further says that the safeguarding investigation has been halted with no outcome, as M has now moved away to live with Miss D’s daughter.
9. Miss D now complains to the LGSCO. She has provided details of contacts and email or verbal conversations, and she says that the constant criticisms and harassment led to her feeling she could no longer care for her mother.
10. I can understand what a difficult decision that must have been for Miss D, and I appreciate her resulting distress. However we will not investigate the complaint. This is because we would be unable to come to an evidenced decision regarding the disputed interactions and allegations, and so would not be able to establish fault.
11. As regards the emails sent by the social worker, they appear to be matters related to M, which would have needed to be resolved. Although I appreciate Miss D felt under pressure, and unable to deal with the level of contact, I cannot regard it as harassment of her, as they are issues that a carer would need to address.
12. Additionally, we would be unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decision to begin a safeguarding investigation as it has a duty to do so when concerns are raised. We would be unable to achieve a different outcome through considering the safeguarding investigation, as no findings were ever made against Miss D.
13. Finally, Miss D complains that her complaint was not properly investigated. She says that the Council focussed too heavily on the issue of the initiation of the safeguarding, and did not respond properly to the issue of medicinal “irregularities”. Aside from saying that it is clear the Council intended the safeguarding investigation to cover the issue of the medication, I will not comment further on the complaints process. We do not investigate complaints about the complaint procedures where we are not investigating the substantive matter.
14. Miss D feels strongly that the attached social worker breached professional standards in her work, which the Council has not addressed. We cannot look at this issue as we are unable to consider personnel or disciplinary matters. If Miss D has concerns about the professionalism of the social worker she has the right to take her concerns to Social Work England, which is the appropriate regulatory body.

Back to top

Final decision

I will not investigate this complaint. This is because I am unlikely to find evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman