Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding because it is unlikely further investigation would find evidence of fault or injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms A complains she received an inadequate response from the London Borough of Haringey’s (the Council’s) safeguarding service. Ms A said it failed to protect her mother, Mrs A, through the safeguarding process.

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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 and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. I shared a confidential version of my provisional decision with Ms A and invited her comments on it. I considered all of the comments and supporting evidence she provided in response.

Back to top

What I found

6. 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)
7. Mrs A is eligible for NHS Continuing Healthcare (CHC) funding. This means that an NHS Integrated Care Board (ICB) is responsible for assessing and reviewing Mrs A’s needs and responsible for arranging support that will adequately meet her needs. Mrs A receives money to pay for support through a Personal Health Budget (PHB).
8. In February and March 2022 Ms A raised a safeguarding concern with the Council. This related to messages she had received from the ICB pressing for a review of Mrs A’s needs and the actions it would take if Ms A did not engage with its plans. Ms A also raised concerns about events in August 2020 when, she said, payments for Mrs A’s care (and associated costs) from her PHB accounts stopped for several months.
9. The Council initially closed the referral without taking any action. However, in April 2022, after Ms A complained, the Council opened a safeguarding case to look into her concerns. It also apologised that it had not done so in the first instance.
10. The Council spoke to Ms A and the ICB and looked at information about Ms A’s PHB. It concluded that Ms A was not at risk of harm or abuse and closed its file, notifying Ms A of the outcome.
11. Overall, it is unlikely that an investigation would find evidence of fault or injustice in this case. This is because:

• Safeguarding’s role is to keep people safe from harm or abuse. It is not to act as an alternative complaints process or dispute resolution forum, or to mediate between parties who disagree.
• In this case the Council focused its enquiries on establishing whether Mrs A was at risk of harm, which was appropriate. It made proportionate enquiries and its findings were in keeping with those findings.

Back to top

Decision

12. We will not investigate Ms A’s complaint because it is unlikely that further investigation would find evidence of fault or injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman