Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to safeguarding concerns. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about how the Council responded to safeguarding referrals for her daughter, Ms Y. She said Ms Y was a vulnerable adult with support needs, but the Council allowed her to move to a different area without a package of support. Ms X said that move was instigated by a support worker who worked with Ms Y. She said that worker had also encouraged Ms Y to dispose of her personal belongings.
2. Ms X said Ms Y was at risk from exploitation where she lives. She wants the Council to take steps to safeguard Ms Y.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms Y moved into the Council’s area in 2021. The Council supported her with a package of care for 14 hours a week. The following year, Ms Y moved to a different area. She chose not to continue with adult social care support following her move.
7. Ms X made a safeguarding referral following Ms Y’s move. She said Ms X was at risk from financial exploitation and exploitative relationships.
8. The Council visited Ms Y to review the concerns and to assess her mental capacity to manage her finances. It assessed her as being able to manage her finances. It considered Ms X’s concerns around Ms Y’s relationships. The Council did not assess Ms Y as needing safeguarding and was satisfied Ms Y could take steps to protect herself. It kept her case open so it could monitor how she managed without a package of support. It confirmed it had made a referral to adult social care in the area that Ms Y now lives.
9. In addition, the Council said the Support Worker Ms X had raised concerns about was no longer employed by the care agency. It said Ms Y chose to remain friends with them. The Council confirmed it had contacted the Care Quality Commission for advice. It said there was no issue with Ms Y remaining friends with the support worker as they had left their role.
10. Although Ms X is unhappy with how the Council dealt with her concerns, we will not investigate. The Council assessed the concerns, considered the views of Ms Y and decided not to take further action. It has followed the correct procedures. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Ms X would need to report any new safeguarding concerns to the area Ms Y now lives.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman