Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding because it is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome. The Council produced an action plan following a safeguarding enquiry, which will reduce any risk to residents of a residential care home.

The complaint

1. Ms B says the Council failed to properly conduct an adult safeguarding enquiry into potential neglect of her mother, Ms C. Ms B worries for the safety of other residents at the residential care home.

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:

• 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.

(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. Ms C was temporarily staying at Springfield Manor Gardens residential care home (the Care Provider). Ms B raised concerns about the care provided to Ms C, which triggered a safeguarding enquiry by the Council. Ms C had moved to another care home, so the risk to her was not continuing.
6. Ms C has since died, so the Ombudsman can provide no remedy to Ms C for any distress she suffered.
7. Safeguarding adults means protecting a person’s right to live in safety, free from abuse and neglect.
8. The Council completed a safeguarding investigation into the allegations the Care Provider neglected Ms C. The Council substantiated some concerns but not others. The Council made recommendations to the Care Provider to improve service, and says it told relevant agencies such as the Care Quality Commission.
9. Ms B believes the Council’s investigation was not thorough enough, and it has not properly considered whether there are systemic issues that put other residents at risk.
10. The Council shared the outcomes and action plan with the Care Provider, which would improve service for other residents.
11. It is unlikely the Ombudsman could achieve anything further by investigation. We cannot achieve any outcome for Ms C, and I have not seen evidence to support there is a wider public issue that would warrant investigation. Even if there was, the Council’s action plan would improve service for other residents, and the Care Quality Commission is aware of the concerns. Ms B also says there is to be an independent inquiry into her concerns; it is not a good use of the Ombudsman resource to investigate the same issues.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because it is unlikely that further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman