Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s actions after it received a safeguarding referral in respect of his now deceased mother, Ms G. We find the Council was at fault for incorrectly telling the family they could not take Ms G out of respite whilst it completed its safeguarding enquiries. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X for the avoidable distress that caused. However, there is no evidence of injustice to Ms G who wished to remain in respite.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s actions after it received a safeguarding referral in respect of his now deceased mother, Ms G. He said the Council failed to explain the nature of the safeguarding allegation, who it was against, and allow the family to provide opinions and evidence. He said the Council incorrectly told him and wider family that Ms G needed to remain in a respite placement because of the allegation despite her wishes to return to the family home.
2. Mr X also complained the Council did not allocate a social worker with appropriate experience to his mother’s case.
3. Mr X said the Council’s actions meant Ms G paid unnecessary fees to remain in care when she could have returned to her daughter’s home. He said how the Council dealt with the safeguarding allegation caused him a great deal of stress.

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 may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), 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 discussed the complaint with Mr X.
8. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response.
9. I referred to the Care and Support statutory guidance and the Care Act 2014.
10. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Safeguarding adults

11. The Care Act 2014 places a duty on councils to safeguard adults who:
• have needs for care and support (whether the council is meeting those needs or not);
• are experiencing, or are at risk of, abuse or neglect; and
• because of their care and support needs, are unable to protect themselves from either the risk of, or the experience of abuse or neglect.
12. If the council has reason to suspect an adult is experiencing, or at risk of abuse or neglect, it should complete an enquiry. Enquiries should be proportionate and allow the council to identify whether it needs to act to prevent or stop abuse and neglect. The adult at risk should always be involved at the beginning of enquiries, including where the Council completes a safeguarding management plan. What happens as a result of an enquiry should reflect the adult’s wishes wherever possible.
13. If the adult has substantial difficulty being involved the Council must arrange for an independent advocate.
14. The Council’s safeguarding policy states it aims to complete and close safeguarding enquiries within three months of the enquiry starting unless there are unavoidable delays.

Background

15. Mr X is Ms G’s son. Mr X had lasting power of attorney over Ms G’s financial affairs.
16. Ms G lived overseas. At the end of 2019 to she came to the UK to live with her daughter and son-in-law, Mr and Mrs Y. Whilst staying with Mr and Mrs Y, Ms G had periods of respite.
17. English was not Ms G’s fist language. The Council’s case records show it arranged an interpreter to support its communication with her.

What happened

18. The Council received a safeguarding referral in March 2020 about Mr X’s management of Ms G’s financial affairs. That referral was made by another of Ms G’s children. The Council spoke to Ms G about the allegation. She said she did not have any concerns. It also spoke to Mr X about the allegation. The Council did not take any further action.
19. The referrer contacted the Council further in June 2020 with the same concerns. They said Mr X had asked Ms G to sign forms but had not explained what these were. The Council spoke to Ms G, who confirmed she had signed a document and did not know what it was for. The Council spoke to Mr X who clarified what the documents were.
20. Around this time Mr X and Mrs Y were in contact with the Council about their mother returning home. They were concerned she could not manage her care needs abroad and did not support her return.
21. The Council decided to complete a mental capacity assessment to consider whether Ms G had capacity to make the decision to return home. The Council arranged for Ms G to have an advocate alongside the interpreter at that assessment. The Council assessed Ms G as having capacity to decide where she lived. Mrs G confirmed she wanted to return home.
22. Mr and Mrs Y were struggling to care for Ms G. They agreed to place her in respite for three weeks whilst the Council completed necessary arrangements to support her return home. Mr X said he would arrange and pay for the respite. Ms G went into respite at the end of June.
23. The following month, Mr X emailed the Council a copy of the receipt he had asked his mother to sign in March. A couple of days later he had a telephone conversation with the Council. The case records show Mr X was still opposed to the idea of supporting Ms G’s return home. He also said that Ms G was spending money unnecessarily whilst in respite. He did not agree to the Council completing a financial assessment so it could assess whether to contribute towards her care costs.
24. The independent advocate and interpreter met with Ms G shortly after that conversation on 16 July. Ms G confirmed she wished to return home and was happy to stay in respite until she could. She said that Mr X would pay with her money.
25. The Council arranged a virtual meeting with Ms G’s children to plan how they could support her return home. The case records indicate the Council had to end that meeting because of disagreement between the siblings. The Council decided to meet with Ms G further to establish her wishes.
26. The Council met with Ms G on 20 July. Following that it held a safeguarding meeting and based on information Ms G had shared, decided to initiate safeguarding enquiries.
27. The Council contacted Mrs Y and Mr X. It said it was completing safeguarding enquiries, but it did not tell them the nature of its concerns. The case records show that was a deliberate decision. The Council told Mrs Y and Mr X they could not take Mrs G out of the care home whilst enquiries were ongoing. The Council said it would arrange support for Ms G’s medical appointments. The Council told Mrs Y and Mr X if Ms G’s respite placement was extended because of ongoing safeguarding investigations, then it would fund the placement.
28. The Council spoke to Mr X about the nature of the safeguarding allegations on 11 August. It spoke to Mrs Y on 14 August. Following that, Mr and Mrs Y, and Mr X sent the Council an email. They questioned what the Council had done to support their mother’s return home and the interpreter it had used. They raised their own safeguarding concerns about the sibling who made the referral.
29. Mrs Y telephoned the Council on 25 August. She said she was taking Ms G back to her home the following week as Ms G had told the family she wanted to move out of respite. The Council responded the same day. It stated they could not take Ms G out of the care home as there were ongoing safeguarding enquiries. It asked the family to complete the financial assessment form for the Council to help fund Ms G’s respite placement.
30. The advocate and interpreter met with Ms G on 28 August. Ms G said she would like to stay with Mrs Y for a couple of weeks before returning to her own home.
31. The Council wrote to Mr X and Mrs Y the same day. It responded to some of the concerns they had raised in their email. It said they needed to support Ms G’s return home as to keep her within the UK against her wishes was a deprivation of liberty. It explained Mr X’s role as lasting power of attorney. The Council said it would provide information about its safeguarding investigation in due course.
32. Ms G’s respite ended on 31 August and she returned to the care of Mr and Mrs Y.
33. The case records show that at the start of September, the Council sought clarification from the independent interpreter that there had not been any difficulties in translating or understanding Ms G. The interpreter confirmed they understood what Ms G had said and if not, they asked her to clarify.
34. Mr X and Mr and Mrs Y subsequently complained to the Council. They raised several issues including the Council:
• had not provided substantive responses to their emails;
• allocated a social worker without sufficient experience to Ms G’s case;
• had given them incorrect information about Ms G leaving respite;
• communicated poorly with them about the safeguarding investigation and failed to ask their opinions; and
• failed to respond to safeguarding concerns they had made about their sibling.
35. The Council accepted it had not responded to all points the family had raised in their emails and that it had not emailed Mr X the details of the safeguarding allegation. It also accepted the Council’s communication in getting the family’s views may have been limited.
36. In respect of the email it sent on 25 August stating Mrs Y could not take Ms G out of respite, it said it should have explained that it would first get Ms G’s views on returning to Mrs Y’s.
37. The Council said it was correct for the social worker to seek advice from management in this case because of the case’s complexity.
38. The Council closed the safeguarding enquiry in November. The case records show that Mr X and Mrs Y confirmed they were supporting Ms G with her return home and there was a plan in place for this.
39. Mr X and Mr and Mrs Y remained unhappy with how the Council had dealt with the safeguarding allegations and its lack of consultation with them. Although they accepted that Ms G had been happy in respite in July, they said if they had not taken legal advice, “she would have been kept in the care home against her wishes and paying £900 per week”.
40. The Council responded in May 2021. It said that although it gave the family safeguarding as the rationale for Mrs Y not taking Ms G to her home, the Council was not restricting Ms G’s movements because of safeguarding concerns but because it was progressing support arrangements it had agreed with Ms G. It said once it had information that Ms G’s views had changed, it supported her return to Mrs Y’s.
41. The Council said it had decided not to start safeguarding enquiries about their sibling as it did not meet the threshold for a section 42 investigation. The Council said that adult safeguarding was not the correct process to resolve family disputes.
42. The Council directed them to the Ombudsman if they remained unhappy.

My findings

The Council’s safeguarding enquiries

43. The Council first initiated safeguarding enquiries in March 2020. It spoke to Ms G and Mr X about the allegations but decided to take no further action as it did not have safeguarding concerns. The Council was not at fault.
44. The Council initiated further safeguarding enquiries in July 2020. The case records show the Council discussed the concerns with Ms G and considered her views and wishes. The Council was not at fault.
45. The Council told Mrs Y and Mr X that it was completing safeguarding enquiries the following day. It did not tell them about the nature of the enquiries until three weeks later. The Council was not obliged to tell Mr X or Mrs Y the nature of their safeguarding enquiries. The case records indicate it was a considered decision. The Council was not at fault.
46. Mr X states the Council did not allow the family to provide opinions or evidence towards the safeguarding investigation. Although the Council did not specifically ask them questions, the Council contacted Mr X about the nature of the allegations on 11 August and spoke to Mrs Y on 14 August. There was nothing preventing Mr X or Mrs Y providing the Council their opinion or evidence following that. Further still, Mr X and Mr and Mrs Y emailed the Council their views on 21 August. The Council was not at fault.

The allocated social worker

47. It is not for the Ombudsman to decide whether Ms G’s allocated social worker had sufficient experience to manage the case. The Council’s records show there was a high level of management oversight and regular meetings with the Council’s legal services. We would expect to see management oversight in such a complex case. The Council was not at fault.

Ms G’s stay in respite

48. The case records show Ms G had stated she was happy to stay in respite until the Council could arrange for her to return home. The case records show that the Council were not told that Ms G wanted to return to Mrs Y’s until 25 August. After receiving that information, the Council arranged for the interpreter and advocate to visit Ms G and ascertain her wishes. Ms G then returned to Mrs Y six days later. I have seen nothing to indicate Ms G remained in respite longer than she wished.
49. However, the case records show a lack of clarity in the information the Council provided Mr X and Mrs Y about Ms G’s stay in respite. In July, the Council told Mr X and Mrs Y that Ms G could not leave respite because of safeguarding. It also said it would pay for respite if Ms G had to stay in for longer than necessary because of its investigation. The Council did not allow Mr X and Mrs Y to take Ms G out of respite without prior agreement. It repeated that she could not leave because of safeguarding on 25 August 2021.
50. I have seen nothing to indicate the Council involved Ms G in its decision that Mr X and Mrs Y could not take her out of respite. The adult at risk should be involved in any safety management plan. Failure to do that was fault.
51. The Council subsequently confirmed that Ms G remained in respite whilst it supported her to return home, not because of safeguarding. The Council did not clarify that with the family until after they complained. That was fault. That has caused them avoidable distress and confusion. However, as set out in paragraph 49, I am satisfied that Ms G was happy to remain in respite until the end of August and she was not caused an injustice.

The closure of the safeguarding enquiries

52. The Council closed its safeguarding enquiry in November 2020. The Council’s policy states that it aims to close safeguarding enquiries within three months of opening the enquiry. It took the Council four months. However, the case records show the Council kept the enquiry open whilst the arrangements to ensure Ms G could return home were finalised therefore I do not consider that delay fault.
53. Although the closure records state Mr X supported the plan to return his mother home, I have seen nothing to indicate the Council told Mr X it had closed the safeguarding enquiry. Although that was not obligatory it would have been good practice. Mr X could have contacted the Council if he wanted confirmation of whether the safeguarding enquiry was ongoing or not.

Mr X and Mrs Y’s safeguarding allegations

54. The Council did not consider Mr X and Mr and Mrs Y’s allegations about their sibling reached the threshold for safeguarding enquiries. The Council should have notified them of the outcome of that decision. The case records show the Council did not do that until May 2021. That was fault. However, I do not consider it caused a significant injustice. If they were concerned Ms G was at significant risk, they could have raised a further safeguarding alert to the Council.

Back to top

Agreed action

55. Within one month of my final decision the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and Mrs Y for the avoidable distress caused by wrongly informing them Ms G could not leave respite because of its safeguarding enquiries.
56. It has agreed to remind staff to ensure that:
• the reasons for any restrictions imposed through a safeguarding management plan are clearly recorded; and
• the restrictions are discussed and agreed with the person at risk, where appropriate, and their views are clearly recorded.

Back to top

Final decision

57. The Council was at fault for incorrectly telling Mr X and Mrs Y they could not take his mother out of respite whilst it completed safeguarding enquiries. The Council has agreed to our remedy therefore I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman