Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s treatment of safeguarding referrals by Mr X. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council failed to give him reasonable access to its services and make adjustments for his autism and mental ill health. He said the Council prevented him from making a safeguarding referral about the actions of its housing management service towards him which he said are abusive and likely to cause him harm.

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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. I have seen the records of numerous safeguarding referrals made concerning Mr X and considered by the Council from the period 2020-2022, many of which concern suicidal ideation. I have also seen the Council’s recent final letter of response to his complaints, most of which revolve around housing issues. This final letter warned Mr X that his contacts were such that it might have to again require him to use a single point of contact within the Council, having previously done so.
6. Despite Mr X’s obvious difficulties, there is a point beyond which any public authority may need to impose contact restrictions on a person to ensure officers can serve other members of the public. In judging that it may be reaching that point, we would expect a council to first warn the person of possible contact restrictions. We would also expect a council to continue to respond to any safeguarding referrals a person may make.
7. Mr X feels the Council should make a reasonable adjustment to take account of his condition. But it is reasonable for the Council, given the frequency of Mr X’s contacts, to warn him that it may need to require him to use a single point of contact. The safeguarding referral records I have seen from 2020-2022 show the Council has considered safeguarding risks to Mr X during that time. The Council’s recent letter to Mr X does not suggest it would decline to consider the safeguarding implications of any future suicidal ideation he may report, regardless of whether he may be required to use a single point of contact.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman