Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an adult safeguarding enquiry. There is not enough evidence any fault by the Council caused Mr X injustice, and we are unlikely to achieve a different outcome, so investigation is not warranted.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complain the Council was biased and unfair in how it conducted a safeguarding adults enquiry, relating to events at a community space he attends alongside users of a care provider. They say the Council failed to properly communicate with Mr X about its involvement and allegations against him. Mr X says this caused him anger and fear about the future of the community space.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X uses a community space that is also attended by a care provider and its service users. The Council carried out a safeguarding investigation following events at the space. The Council found those events amounted to abuse of the service users. It decided it would take over management of the space.
6. The Council has accepted when it spoke to Mr X it did not clearly explain that it was carrying out a safeguarding enquiry, rather than simply ‘fact-finding’. It accepts this caused Mr X avoidable misunderstanding. It apologised and said its officers would reflect on this.
7. Mr X raised other concerns about the investigation which the Council did not agree with. For example, he says the Council was biased as it kept in contact with the care provider more than with the alleged perpetrators. However, the outcome of the Council’s investigation would not have been significantly different but for the issues Mr X raises.
8. Mr X’s fear for the future of the space is not a significant injustice that can be directly linked to any fault by the Council. There has been no specific action taken towards Mr X, for example restrictions on his ability to use the space. The Council made recommendations for the space’s committee, not individuals. There is not enough evidence any fault by the Council caused Mr X significant injustice.
9. If we investigated this complaint, it is unlikely we would come to a different conclusion or recommend different action to that which the Council said it would take.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence any fault by the Council caused Mr X injustice, and we are unlikely to achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman