Summary: Miss X complained that the Council failed to support her during a period when she and her disabled daughter required safeguarding support. She also says the Council failed to respond to her complaints about its failures. We find that the Council was at fault for delaying to formally answer Miss X’s complaint. In other respects, we do not find the Council at fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained that the Council failed to support her and her daughter, Miss D when they needed safeguarding support.
2. She said this failure caused her and Miss D distress and she is now having to take medication as a consequence.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint,

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

4. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
5. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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 spoke with Miss X.
8. I reviewed the information provided by the Council in response to enquiries.
9. Miss 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

Relevant law and/or guidance

Safeguarding Overview

10. A council must make enquiries if it thinks a person may be at risk of abuse or neglect and has care and support needs which mean the person cannot protect themselves. An enquiry is the action taken by a council in response to a concern about abuse or neglect. An enquiry could range from a conversation with the person who is the subject of the concern, to a more formal multi-agency arrangement. A council must also decide whether it or another person or agency should take any action to protect the person from abuse. (section 42, Care Act 2014)

Council complaint procedure

11. Councils should have clear procedures to deal with social care complaints. Regulations and guidance say they should investigate and resolve complaints quickly and efficiently. A single stage procedure should be enough. The council should include in its complaint response:

• how it considered the complaint;
• the conclusions reached about the complaint, including any required remedy; and
• whether it is satisfied all necessary action has been or will be taken by the organisations involved; and
• details of the complainant’s right to complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. (Local Authority Social Services and National Health Service Complaints (England) Regulations 2009)

Brief summary of what happened

12. Miss X cares for her daughter, Miss D, who is a vulnerable adult with support needs.
13. In January 2021 Miss D received an upsetting package through the post. It later transpired, after police involvement, that the package had been sent from Germany. In any event, Miss X and Miss D were upset by the communication and Miss X’s doctor made a referral to the Council’s safeguarding team. A safeguarding officer, Officer B, set a number of tasks for another officer, Officer T, to complete, in order to ascertain what support the family might need and whether they were at risk.
14. Officer T had an initial conversation with Miss X on 8 March 2021. She set out a number of issues she was having and requested support. Officer T recorded that he told Miss X that, “social services can not solve all problems and advised that some of the issues would be resolved through the involvement of other professionals such as police mental health GP, housing etc.”
15. Ultimately, Miss X did not consider that Officer T supported her and Miss D effectively. She wrote to the Council chief executive on 18 May 2021, saying that Officer T had not carried out the actions he had promised to complete. I will set out below, in summary, some of what Miss X said Officer T failed to do and the actions the records show he took. I am not looking at every single complaint made by Miss X, but those that are central to the general complaint Miss X made that the Council failed to safeguard her and Miss D.
16. Miss X told the chief executive that Officer T:
17. Failed to explore the reasons why the police investigation into the upsetting package had been closed.

• On 16 March 2021 Officer T emailed and called the police to chase a response.
• On 19 March 2021 Officer T spoke to police again about the case.
• Following the police telling Miss X they could not action the investigation further, followed that up with the police. The police explained that they had assessed Miss X’s concerns and considered that the messages she received did not indicate any threat or immediate risk of harm.

18. Failed to investigate issues with her neighbours, including unwelcome CCTV cameras, lights shining into her daughter’s window, rubbish in her neighbour’s garden and pests.

• Officer T’s enquiries with her housing association reported that the camera Miss X complained of was not facing her property.
• Officer T noted Miss X had said that she did not want to write reports for Environmental Health as that would be too much for her at that time. But she had mentioned that Environmental Health had already visited.
• Officer T enquired with Environmental Health and on 11 April 2021 learnt that another pest control visit was expected. A previous visit from an office had reported that there was no action needed. Officer T followed this up in mid-April 2021. It was considered that there was no evidence of any statutory nuisance. However, if there were lights shining in through a bedroom this could be followed up. Miss X would need to write diary sheets but she declined.
• Another visit at Miss T’s property had shown that the lights Miss T complained of were ground solar lights around two inches high. It was considered that these lights did not encroach on Miss X’s property. The camera had been referred to the Information Commissioner’s Office to see if they would like to investigate. The records show that Miss X had been sent a letter from the ICO about the options she could take.
• On a visit on 19 April 2021, Officer T noted that he pointed out to Miss X that the camera facing her neighbour’s garden was not causing a disturbance. The housing association informed Officer T that neighbours had been given 28 days to clear any rubbish.

19. Failed to address issues with residents parking in the wrong parking bay.

• This is an issue that was for Miss X’s housing association to address. The records show that Officer T, nonetheless, made enquiries, and was informed that relevant letters had been sent to her residents about the parking.

20. Failed to contact her housing authority about the possibility of installing a camera around the back of her house because of stalking issues.

• Officer T spoke to the housing association about changing her locks. New locks were installed in mid-April 2021 and the notes show Miss X thanked Officer T for his intervention in relation to this.

21. Failed to get in touch with a cyber team in connection with the stalking issues.

• Officer T contacted a service that helps with stalking issues. He was informed that Miss X had not engaged effectively with the service. Officer T informed Miss X about this at his visit on 19 April 2021 and Miss X said it was untrue. Officer T said he would speak with the Cyber team again.

22. Did not contact her after visiting her house on 19 April 2021.

• Officer T later spoke with Miss X on 27 April 2021.

23. When she did speak with Officer T on 27 April 2021 Miss X said that Officer T put the phone down on her and she had not heard from him since.

• Officer T’s record of that call was that it was a difficult conversation which he did eventually terminate because it became unhelpful. The records show that Officer T went over the issues that were concerning Miss X but she was unhappy with his approach.

24. Officer T also liaised with a mental health nurse for Miss X, although it appears that this relationship broke down.
25. The records show that a Council officer contacted Miss X on 7 June 2021. An officer spoke with Miss X for about half an hour. She recorded that Miss X’s main grievance was that she was concerned about the police decision to close her case. She felt that she had not been supported. The officer signposted Miss X to a number of websites where she thought Miss X could get some support, especially legal advice about options for tackling harassment and stalking.
26. On 16 June 2021 Miss X wrote to the chief executive again. She said that she had been called by another officer on 23 June 2021. She said that in this call she had been told that the case had been closed. She said she was “…overjoyed to hear this news because [Officer T] had not been supporting her. However, she said she was pleased with the new officer’s call and the efforts she made to understand what she had been going through. She said she had arranged to allocate an advocate for Miss X and had reinstated the cyber team.
27. On 6 July 2021 the records show Miss X asked for her safeguarding case to be closed. The records show Miss X asked that this be specifically set out in a letter to her. This was done the next day.
28. On 13 July 2021 Miss X complained that she had not asked for her safeguarding case to be closed, but had asked not to be supported by Officer T. She said the issues she had raised were still ongoing.
29. When I spoke with Miss X she told me that she had also been homeless for a period of time and that she had informed the Council of this every day. She said she had complained about this in her letter to the chief executive of the Council. There is no reference to being homeless in her letter to the chief executive or in the records I have seen.
30. Miss X also said that she had not been contacted by the Council following her letter to the chief executive.
31. On 7 September 2021 officers visited Miss X. On 9 September 2021 Miss X complained about the visit, saying, among other things, that the officers were 15 minutes late and their attitude was patronizing.
32. On 12 October 2021 Miss X made a formal complaint asking to be moved from her property. The records show that she moved from the property on 26 October 2021.
33. On 19 October 2021 Miss X asked for a response to her complaint from the Council. She said that as she considered her daughter’s life was at risk, she expected her complaint to be addressed urgently. She also said that she was under a lot of stress and asked for some recognition that her complaint was being addressed.
34. The Council sent Miss X a formal response to her complaint on 27 January 2022.

Analysis and findings

35. I consider the Council’s response to Miss X’s response was delayed to such an extent that it caused her some distress. Some action was taken in response to her letters to the chief executive but when she made a formal complaint in October 2021, the Council should not have taken over three months to respond. I have made a recommendation to acknowledge the distress caused by that fault.
36. However, it is not the case that Miss X was left without support. The Council made efforts to support Miss X from the outset.
37. Even if there was some confusion over whether Miss X asked for her safeguarding case to be closed or not, the records show that the Council still took steps to support Miss X, including arranging a visit in September 2021. When Miss X’s relationship broke down with Officer T, the Council arranged for an advocate to work with Miss X and re-engaged with the cyber team at her request.
38. It appears that because of Miss X’s grave concerns about the safety of Miss D, she developed unrealistic expectations about what Officer T or any other officer could achieve for her as safeguarding officers. The Council was unable, for instance, to compel the police to proceed with its investigation. The records show Officer T had explained the limitations of the Council’s role in one of the first conversations he had with Miss X.
39. Following Officer T’s intervention with various professionals and agencies, among other things:

• Miss X received an update from the police on the outcome of its investigation, albeit not the outcome she had hoped for.
• Miss X’s housing association arranged for her neighbour’s rubbish to be cleared within a period of 28 days. It also arranged with her housing association to have her locks changed.
• Miss X was contacted and had continued contact with a mental health nurse, until this relationship broke down.
• It was ascertained that rat poison had already been put down and this was further investigated by Environmental Health.

40. There is no compelling evidence that the Council was told of a period of time where Miss X says she was homeless and so I cannot find it at fault for any failure to act at that time.
41. In conclusion, I do not find the Council acted with fault in its approach to safeguarding Miss X and Miss D. It took appropriate steps to support her but it could not resolve all the issues that she was concerned about as it was not within its power to do so.
42. Further, many of the complaints that Miss X made about the Council’s approach to her situation involve issues that were concerning to her when she lived at an address she is no longer living at. Therefore, there is no useful action that the Council could now take in relation to those issues.

Back to top

Agreed action

43. Within a month of our final decision, the Council should pay Miss X the sum of £200 to acknowledge the distress caused by its delayed response to her formal complaint.
44. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Final decision

45. I have found the Council at fault which caused some injustice. The Council has agreed with my recommendations to remedy that and I have now closed this investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman