Bristol City Council (21 000 088)

Category : Adult care services > Safeguarding

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 10 May 2022

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Ms C, who was a Shared Lives Carer, complained about the way in which the Council responded to allegations made against her. I found the Council failed to effectively communicate with Ms C and there was a delay in completing the safeguarding enquiry. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy for the distress this caused Ms C.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms C, complained about the way in which the Council responded to concerns raised against her. Ms C complained:
    • The Council failed to tell her that it had started a safeguarding investigation into the allegation she had shouted.
    • The Council failed to tell her in a timely manner of the allegations that were made against her.
    • A manager behaved inappropriately during a meeting with her.
    • A social worker breached her position when she raised a safeguarding concern on behalf of her brother, against her (Ms C).
    • The Council’s safeguarding investigation into the third allegation made, was not done properly:
        1. There was an unreasonable delay in investigating this.
        2. The Council failed to make any enquiries or speak to her.
        3. The outcome left the possibility open that she could be guilty.
  2. Ms C also complained the Council failed to provide evidence to the Police that would have been relevant for their investigation.
  3. Ms C says this resulted in a delay in her being able to obtain alternative employment.
  4. Ms C complained there has been a lack of active acknowledgement and expressed empathy towards her throughout these events.

Back to top

What I have investigated

  1. I investigated all aspects of Ms C’s complaint, except her allegation that a manager had behaved inappropriately.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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

  1. I considered the information I received from Ms C and the Council. I shared a copy of my draft decision statement with Ms C and the Council and considered any comments I received, before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Ms C was a Shared Lives Carer. As a Shared Lives Carer, she and her husband had two service users living with them, with whom they shared their family and community life, and whom they gave care and support to.
  2. In June 2019, a safeguarding concern was raised about Ms C. The allegation was that Ms C and her husband were controlling and punitive in the way they spoke to one of the people they cared for, whom I shall call Mr T. The Council categorised this as an allegation of psychological and emotional abuse.
  3. Ms C complained the Council failed to tell her, in a timely manner, what the allegations were against her, and failed to tell her it had started a safeguarding investigation into the allegation.
  4. In response to Ms C’s complaint, the Council told her in October 2021 that it spoke to her on in June and July 2019. It acknowledged it only told her about the allegations during the second conversation, and there was no evidence it told her the Council started a safeguarding enquiry. The Council explained to Ms C that while the outdated “Shared Lives Guidance” states the Council should have told her this, there is no requirement in law (within the Care Act 2014) to tell alleged perpetrators of abuse of the allegations made against them. It said it would update the Shared Lives guidance accordingly.
  5. Mr T made a serious allegation in October 2019. Ms C complained the Council failed to tell her what this allegation was.
  6. The Police investigations started in October 2019 and initially ended in May 2020. The Council told Ms C in its complaint response that it could not reveal any details, because the Police told them they could not share this information with her. This is correct. The Council told Ms C during a visit in October 2019 that it would be up to the Police to tell her of this allegation. The Council told Ms C in May 2020 when the Police investigation ended.
  7. Ms C complained the Council failed to provide evidence to the Police that would have been relevant for their investigation, including:
    • A risk assessment the Council carried out previously, because Mr T was known to make up stories / lies to get attention.
    • Diary notes her husband made on the night the second allegation (event) would have taken place.
  8. The Council said it was up to the Police to decide what information it needed and when. The Police asked for Mr T’s records in March 2020, as part of their continuing investigation, and was aware of his inclination to be untruthful. I did not find fault with this. Furthermore, even if a suspect is known to be untrustworthy, these allegations would still have had to be investigated in the usual manner.
  9. Mr T’s sister also made an allegation against Ms C in October 2019. Her concerns were based on what her brother had told her about his experiences. The Council told me this was about alleged controlling and punitive treatment by Ms C, which had been raised and looked into in June 2019.
  10. Ms C complained that:
    • Being a social worker, Mr T’s sister breached her position when she raised this concern.
    • The Council failed to tell her in a timely manner what the allegation was against her.
    • There was an unreasonable delay in investigating this.
    • The Council failed to make any enquiries, and failed to speak to her to gain her views on the allegations and ask her to provide any information such as her diaries, risk assessments etc.
    • The result of ‘inconclusive’ left open the possibility she could be guilty for some allegations made. This was only rectified five months later.
  11. In response, the Council has:
    • Explained the process of reporting safeguarding concerns is open to members of the public and social workers. Mr T’s sister raised the concern as ‘a member of the public’ and did not identify herself as a social worker. Mr T’s sister was not involved with the team who looked into the concerns.
    • Acknowledged it failed to tell Ms C about these allegations until September 2020, one year later.
    • Said it did not prioritise her sister’s concerns due to: changes in management, shortage of staff due to Covid-19, the case priority being reduced to ‘no risk’ as Mr T was no longer living with Ms C, and the concerns being like the allegations made in June 2019. It only started to investigate the sister’s concerns in late March 2021; this delay was unreasonable. It said it should have made further enquiries when the police investigation ended in May 2020. This did not happen resulting in a significant delay.
    • The investigator contacted Ms C in May 2021 to say the allegations were (by now) historical, and there was no way to prove or disprove the statements that Mr T had made to his sister. As such, he said the outcome would be inconclusive.” The Council acknowledged in its complaint response in October 2021 that the investigator failed to ask Ms C to comment on the allegations.
    • The Council has admitted to Ms C that, having discussed this outcome with a senior manager, it has concluded that this outcome was incorrect, and it should have been ‘unsubstantiated’.
  12. In response, Ms C said the third allegations were not police matters and the Council should have investigated this in October 2019, not in May 2020 when the police investigation was completed, or March 2021 when the Council actually started to investigate it.
  13. The Council told me that it took longer to investigate this partly because the police reopened their investigation in September 2020, finally ending it in November 2020. The Council will meet with the police to discuss some issues around safeguarding and length of time to complete investigations, and communication.
  14. However, the records state the social worker asked the safeguarding team in November 2019 if the sister’s allegations, being similar in nature to those looked into following the allegations in June 2019, would need to be revisited. The safeguarding team advised that the concern raised by Mr T’s sister should progress to a safeguarding enquiry. It appears there was some further action on it but that it was ‘forgotten about’ (no actions) between January 2020 and March 2021. The manager dealing with it in March 2021 concluded: “allegation is historical and there is no way to prove or disprove the statements that Mr T made to his sister”.
  15. Ms C says the Council (Shared Lives) should have allocated one person to coordinate her case between care management / safeguarding and her (the shared live carer). She said that, while this may not be a ‘requirement’ under ‘safeguarding adult processes’, the Council identified this as ‘a good practice that needs to be in place for Shared Lives Carers’. This means it should have been done in her case and should be done with similar cases in the future.
  16. In response, the Council told Ms C in October 2021 that safeguarding adults’ processes are focused on the adult at risk. There is no requirement in law to furnish alleged perpetrators of abuse with contacts for those carrying out enquiries or to provide them with updates on the safeguarding enquiry. However, the “Shared Lives Guidance” states there should be a person to coordinate between care management and the shared live carer. Due to covid-19 there was a lack of consistency with regards to staff being in posts, as they moved around. However, she and her solicitors were provided with names of case holders during the enquiries.
  17. Ms C says the above resulted in a delay in being able to seek alternative employment. In response, the Council told her that there is evidence that you were advised, when the police investigations had ended, that any further Council enquiries would not prevent you from working as Shared Lives carers. Furthermore, the Council said that Ms C could have pursued employment other than as a shared lives carer. However, Ms C disagrees. She said that she was unable to pursue alternative employment because:
    • There was a delay by the Council in providing her with closure with regards to these serious matters, which seriously distressed her throughout.
    • Any employer would have asked for a reference from Shared Lives, which they would not be able to provide as there were still open safeguarding concerns against her
    • She wants this (missing out on income) to be reflected in a financial remedy.
  18. In response, the Council said that:
    • The police investigations prevented Ms C from working as Shared Lives carer between October 2019 and May 2020, and again between September 2020 and November 2020. Outside of these times she was able to pursue restarting her role as carer. As such, it was manly the police investigation that prevented her to work as shared lives carer, not the delay in the Council’s investigation.
    • All job references these days are very generic, confirming role and dates employed only which the Council / Shared Lives would have given.  
    • The main and serious allegations were about Mr C and so the police investigation would have had no impact on Mrs C’s ability to seek employment. There is no evidence Ms C made any enquiries about a reference from the Council or what might be included.
  19. Ms C complained there has been a lack of active acknowledgement and expressed empathy towards her throughout these events. She said the officers she had contact with never said something along the lines of “we are really sorry we cannot give you an update because …”, “we can understand how distressing this situation / delays must be for you and your family” etc.
  20. In response, the Council told Ms C in October 2021 that:
    • Ms C received support from three Shared Lives Officers. However, Ms C has said she did not find the support particularly helpful.
    • Ms C had contact with Shared Lives Plus, seeking legal advice, which is commissioned by the Council to support Shared Lives carers.
    • The records show that officers involved were aware of the impact events would be having on Ms C.
  21. The Council told me that it offered Ms C £500 to remedy the distress caused by the above faults. However, having reviewed the case, it would no like to increase this to £750. My view is this is an appropriate financial remedy.

Analysis

  1. I have upheld Ms C’s complaint that there were faults with the way in which the Council responded to the allegations made against her:
    • The Council failed to tell Ms C it had started a safeguarding investigation into the first set of allegations. However, my view is this did not result in a significant injustice.
    • There was a delay of one year before the Council told Ms C what allegations Mr T’s sister had made. This resulted in uncertainty to Ms C, which caused her distress.
    • There was a delay of 17 months until the Council started to investigate these allegations. The Council said it should have started its investigations in May 2020, when the police investigation ended. However, there was no need to postpone the Council’s investigation into these allegations, as they were different to the ones investigated by the Police. The records show that ‘the police investigation’ was not a factor in the delay; the Council did not make a decision to delay its investigation due to the police’s investigation. This unreasonable delay caused Ms C uncertainty / distress over a lengthy period, which is a significant injustice.
    • Once the Council started to look at the allegations in March 2021, the investigator failed to contact Ms C to ask her for information and documents she wished to provide, before reaching a conclusion.
    • The Council acknowledged that the outcome of ‘inconclusive’, as reached in May 2021, was incorrect. It told Ms C in October 2021 that it should have been ‘unsubstantiated. This delay in reaching the correct outcome caused Ms C distress, which is a significant injustice.
  2. The faults identified above resulted in distress to Ms C. However, Ms C was unable to work as a shared lives carer during the police investigation, not during the Council’s investigation. Furthermore, although the above faults would have been distressing to Ms C, they did not prevent her from pursuing / obtaining alternative employment.

Back to top

Agreed action

  1. I recommended that, within four weeks of my decision, the Council:
    • Apologises to Ms C for any faults identified above and the distress it has caused her. It should also pay her the £750 it as now offered as a remedy.
    • Share the lessons learned with the Council’s safeguarding team.
  2. The Council has told me it has accepted my recommendations.

Back to top

Draft decision

  1. For reasons explained above, I have upheld Ms C’s complaint. I am satisfied with the actions the Council will carry out to remedy this and have therefore decided to complete my investigation and close the case.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

  1. I did not investigate the complaint about the manager’s behaviour as it will not be possible to come to a finding when events are based on different views of a conversation as to what was said or meant.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings