Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s safeguarding enquiry following Mrs Y’s injury in a care home. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council investigated the matter.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s involvement in safeguarding concerns relating to her mother, Mrs Y, after she suffered an injury in a care home. She says there were delays and the Council did not properly investigate the matter, showing bias towards the description from the care home. She says the Council also did not properly deal with her complaint. She says the injury caused her mother’s death, but the Council has refused to provide records to her, causing distress. She wants the Council to provide answers and copies of records, and correct its section 42 report.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

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.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X’s mother, Mrs Y, suffered an injury in a care home. The care provider presumed Mrs Y had fallen, however Miss X suggested she may have been assaulted. The Council viewed the available records and made enquiries with the relevant agencies. The information it considered included views of Mrs Y’s GP and hospital staff. The Council’s enquiry considered both theories and concluded that it was not possible to say how Mrs Y had been injured.
6. Miss X told the Council there were several inaccuracies in its report. However, these related largely to details that did not materially impact the outcome. We could not conclude Mrs Y experienced abuse, and further investigation by us would not change the outcome of the enquiry.
7. There is insufficient evidence the Council did not properly investigate the matter. It came to a balanced outcome based on the available evidence. The Council did not give more weight to the care provider’s theory than Miss X’s, as the outcome was inconclusive. Miss X says a coroner’s inquest is underway. Should this raise new evidence that would change these findings, it is open to Miss X to inform the Council and complain to us again if necessary.
8. The Council accepts its enquiry was delayed. However, this was due in part to the Council’s scrutiny of the care provider’s internal investigation, which further supports a finding that it carried out appropriate enquiries. The delays did not ultimately impact the outcome and so any fault in this respect did not cause Mrs X an injustice.
9. It is not a good use of resources to consider a complaint about complaint processes, where we decide we will not investigate the substantive matter. We will not therefore consider Miss X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with her complaint in isolation.
10. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is best placed to deal with complaints about how organisations handle people’s data. It is open to Miss X to contact the ICO about her concerns the Council has not shared information with her and her request for it to amend the report.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman