Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s accepted delay in producing a safeguarding report regarding Mr X’s late wife’s respite care. This is because the delay did not cause Mr X a significant injustice. In addition, we will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint regarding the content of the safeguarding report. This is because the Ombudsman would be unlikely to provide a different outcome for Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council’s delay in producing a safeguarding report regarding the respite care his late wife Mrs X received caused a further delay to the inquest into the matter. He also complained the Council did not complete the report properly.
2. Mr X said this matter has caused him and his family stress and upset.

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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained to the Council after his wife Mrs X died following a period of respite care. The Council conducted a safeguarding enquiry into the care provider and delivered a safeguarding report, partially substantiating the concerns raised.
8. Mr X complained about the delay in receiving the report. He said this prevented the coroner completing an inquest into the matter. He also complained the report was not thorough enough.
9. The Council explained that liaising with the Care Provider and medical professionals caused the delay and did not prevent the inquest from taking place.
10. Mr X wants the Ombudsman to find the Council at fault for the delay in producing the report. The Council has admitted fault for the delay. There is no evidence the delay led to a significant injustice for Mr X.
11. Mr X is also unhappy with the content of the report. The Council has consulted with various professionals and made several recommendations to address the concerns raised. There is nothing to suggest the Council’s investigation was flawed. An investigation into this part of the complaint would be unlikely to provide a different outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Ombudsman would be unlikely to provide a different outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman