Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s safeguarding investigation. We could not achieve the outcome Mr X seeks. There is also insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, nor has any fault caused a significant injustice to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council's actions when investigating a safeguarding concern relating to his mother, Mrs Y, with him as the alleged perpetrator. He says the Council did not conduct its enquiry properly and came to the wrong conclusions. His concerns include the Council:
• Did not tell him he was being investigated, and questioned him covertly;
• Included unfair and inaccurate statements in its enquiry report;
• Was biased against him and refused to consider his rebuttals which he provided in writing;
• Ignored his lasting power of attorney.
2. Mr X says the matter caused significant distress and he wants the Council to retract and disregard the report it produced.

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, 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), as amended, section 34(B))

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council received a safeguarding concern relating to Mrs Y, which it investigated. Mr X challenged several elements of the enquiry report, submitting a 44-page document to the Council. The Council responded via its complaints process to some significant points, but explained it would be disproportionate to respond to every point. There is no evidence of fault in this decision.
8. The Council disputes Mr X’s allegation that it did not tell him it was investigating him. There is a conflict of views in this regard, and we could not say what happened.
9. The Council has a duty to record the evidence it gathers during its enquiries, and while Mr X disagrees with the contents of its report, this does not mean the Council was at fault for recording the information it gathered.
10. Mrs Y’s lasting power of attorney is not in effect unless she has lost the mental capacity to make decisions about her health and welfare, which is not the case here. The Council was not under any duty to consider the existence of a lasting power of attorney and there is no evidence of fault in this respect.
11. There is insufficient evidence the Council was biased against Mr X, and the enquiry did not result in the allegations being substantiated. It would therefore be disproportionate for us to investigate this complaint, because ultimately any fault has not caused a negative outcome for Mr X and us investigating would not change the outcome of the enquiry.
12. In any event, the Council has taken appropriate action in response to Mr X’s rebuttals, by amending grammatical errors Mr X highlighted and including his rebuttal document in Mrs Y’s safeguarding file. We could not recommend the Council retracts or changes its report because it has a duty to keep a record of the evidence it gathered. The report shows it considered the views of the relevant parties. This included Mr X and, most importantly, Mrs Y who had the mental capacity to express her wishes fully. We could not achieve a meaningful outcome for Mr X by investigating this complaint, and I am satisfied with the action the Council has taken.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we could not achieve the outcome he seeks. There is also insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, nor has any fault caused a significant injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman