Redcar & Cleveland Council (21 008 840)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with safeguarding concerns about her son. This is because she is not a suitable person to complain on behalf of her son. There is no fault in the Council not allowing Miss X to attend the safeguarding meeting. The Council has also apologised for the delay in sending Miss X the outcome of the safeguarding meeting and this is a suitable remedy.
The complaint
- Miss X complains the Council has failed to consider her safeguarding concerns about her son who is a resident in a care home. Miss X says she was not invited to the safeguarding meeting and there was a three week delay in the Council sharing the outcome of the meeting with her.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
- 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)
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- Miss X’s son lacks capacity to make decisions about his welfare or finances. This means other people will make decisions about these matters in his best interests. Miss X does not have authority to act on behalf of her son. Therefore, we cannot investigate how the Council considered issues which directly affect Miss X’s son as she is not a suitable person to bring a complaint on his behalf. Therefore we will not investigate the way the Council handled the safeguarding investigation.
- We can consider parts of the complaint which directly affect Miss X.
- There is no fault in the Council not inviting Miss X to the safeguarding meeting. Miss X’s son was represented at the meeting by an advocate and as she has no authority to speak on his behalf it would not have been appropriate for her to attend.
- The Council has accepted it delayed sharing the outcome of safeguarding investigation with Miss X. The Council has apologised to Miss X for this. This is a suitable remedy for any injustice caused and there is nothing further we could achieve from an investigation.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because she is not a suitable person to complain on behalf of her son. There is no fault in the Council not allowing Miss X to attend the safeguarding meeting. The Council has also apologised for the delay in sending Miss X the outcome of the safeguarding meeting and this is a suitable remedy.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman