Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s safeguarding investigation into concerns it received about Ms B. This is because further investigation is unlikely to provide Ms B with a different finding or provide her with the outcome she wants.

The complaint

1. Ms B complained about the way the Council considered a safeguarding investigation into allegations made about her. Ms B says she was not given the opportunity to give her views and counteract the false allegations made against her. Ms B says the Council was too ready to accept allegations invented about her. Ms B wants her name cleared and her good reputation restored, an apology and retraction of the safeguarding for failure to properly investigate false refuted allegations about her.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3.  

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council’s Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults policy sets out who should be invited to Strategy Meetings. It says alleged perpetrators should not attend. It does not say alleged perpetrators cannot be interviewed or say whether their views can be considered. However, the Strategy Meeting will determine who should be interviewed. Ms B says if she had been interviewed and the Council had considered her conflicting information, the allegations against her would not have been upheld. However, we could not make this finding. We can only consider whether the Council’s processes and policies were properly followed. The Council’s role is to safeguard vulnerable adults not to protect the reputation of alleged perpetrators. The Council must be satisfied it has enough information to determine the outcome of the investigation, which in this case it did. The Council met with Ms B to explain the outcome of the investigation following its conclusion.
7. We could not make a finding the Council’s actions have caused Ms B the injustice she claims. Ms B says if the Council had considered her evidence and views it may have reached a different outcome, however, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine this. Ms B can ask the Council to put a copy of her views about the disputed information she disagrees with, to lie on file alongside its findings.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because further investigation is unlikely to provide Ms B with a different finding or provide her with the outcome she wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman